performance appraisal systems in higher education: an
TRANSCRIPT
University of Central Florida University of Central Florida
STARS STARS
Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019
2009
Performance Appraisal Systems In Higher Education: An Performance Appraisal Systems In Higher Education: An
Exploration Of Christian Institutions Exploration Of Christian Institutions
Forrest Flaniken University of Central Florida
Part of the Education Commons
Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd
University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu
This Doctoral Dissertation (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted
for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more
information, please contact [email protected].
STARS Citation STARS Citation Flaniken, Forrest, "Performance Appraisal Systems In Higher Education: An Exploration Of Christian Institutions" (2009). Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019. 3857. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/3857
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION: AN EXPLORATION OF CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS
by
FORREST W. FLANIKEN B.A. Davidson College, 1976
M.B.A. Vanderbilt University, 1979
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Education in the Department of Educational Research, Technology and Leadership
in the College of Education at the University of Central Florida
Orlando, FL
Fall Term 2009
Major Professor: Rosa Cintrón
ii
©2009 Forrest W. Flaniken
iii
ABSTRACT
Although there is substantial literature on the use of performance appraisal in the for-
profit world, there is little literature available concerning the appraisal of staff positions
in higher education. More knowledge is needed in this area since there is considerable
research indicating that performance appraisal creates benefits to an organization and its
employees. This study provides a comprehensive review of the development and use of
performance appraisal in the United States, and a detailed look at the purposes, benefits,
and challenges of performance appraisal. The study found a very high usage of staff
performance appraisal in its population of 108 Christian colleges and universities.
However, it also found a significant amount of dissatisfaction with the appraisal process
due to (a) lack of leadership support for the appraisal process, (b) supervisors not being
held accountable for the timely completion of their appraisals, and (c) the lack of training
provided supervisors for doing performance appraisals well.
iv
Dedicated to my wife, Kristen
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am very appreciative of the help, insight, wisdom, and encouragement I received
from my doctoral advisor, Dr. Rosa Cintrón, and for her incessant drive for excellence
throughout this research. I am grateful as well for the additional members of my
dissertation committee - Dr. George Pawlas, Dr. Tom Owens, and Dr. Tammy Boyd – for
the investment of their time, knowledge, and support to help bring this research to
successful completion.
I am extremely thankful for my wife Kristen, and for my sons Forrest III, Nelson,
and Spencer, who stood with me throughout this doctoral program with their love,
support, and patience, and who encouraged me to complete the task which I had begun.
And finally, I want to express thanks to my employer, Wycliffe Bible Translators,
Inc., who was very supportive of my participation in this program for the past several
years.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... ix LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. x CASE STUDY ................................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
General Background .................................................................................................... 2 Purposes of Performance Appraisal ..................................................................... 4 Benefits of Performance Appraisal ...................................................................... 5 Difficulties with Performance Appraisal .............................................................. 6 Impact of Organizational Structure and Culture on Performance Appraisal........ 8 Accountability in Higher Education ..................................................................... 9 Performance Appraisal in Higher Education ........................................................ 9
Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................... 10 Conceptual Framework .............................................................................................. 13 Research Questions .................................................................................................... 20 Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................... 20 Definition of Terms ................................................................................................... 21 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................... 23 Summary .................................................................................................................... 24
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 25 Historical Development of Performance Appraisal ................................................... 25
Early Beginnings ................................................................................................ 25 Development of Performance Appraisal in the United States ............................ 25
Trends in Performance Appraisal .............................................................................. 28 Evaluation Methods ............................................................................................ 28 Rating Scale Format ........................................................................................... 35 Performance Appraisal and the Legal System .................................................... 39
Guidelines for a Successful Performance Appraisal System ..................................... 42 Challenges of Performance Appraisal ....................................................................... 47 Development of Performance Appraisal within Higher Education ........................... 52
Administration of Higher Education .................................................................. 52
vii
Changing Expectations and Roles of Academic Administrators ....................... 58 Faculty Performance Appraisal in Higher Education ................................................ 60
The Work of Faculty .......................................................................................... 62 Goals of Faculty Appraisal ................................................................................. 65
Organizational Governance and Performance Appraisal in Higher Education ......... 68 Distinctive Characteristics .................................................................................. 68 Organizational Governance ................................................................................ 72
Organizational Culture and Performance Appraisal .................................................. 78 Collegial Culture ................................................................................................ 79 Managerial Culture ............................................................................................. 80 Developmental Culture ....................................................................................... 81 Advocacy Culture ............................................................................................... 82 Virtual Culture .................................................................................................... 83 Tangible Culture ................................................................................................. 84 Relevance of Culture to Performance Appraisal ................................................ 85
Religiously Affiliated Colleges and Universities ...................................................... 87 Challenges Facing Religiously Affiliated Institutions ....................................... 88 Distinctives of Christian Colleges and Universities ........................................... 90 Additional Characteristics of Christian Colleges and Universities .................... 94 History of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities ......................... 95 Governance, Freedom, and Accountability in Christian Institutions ................. 97
Summary .................................................................................................................... 98 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 100
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 100 Population and Setting ............................................................................................. 100 Research Design and Rationale for Design ............................................................. 101 Instrument Development ......................................................................................... 103 Pilot Study ............................................................................................................... 104 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................... 107 Authorization to Conduct the Study ........................................................................ 108 Originality Score ...................................................................................................... 109
CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA ........................................................................... 110 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 110
viii
Population ................................................................................................................ 110 Research Question 1 ................................................................................................ 110 Research Question 2 ................................................................................................ 115 Research Question 3 ................................................................................................ 116 Responses to Open-Ended Question ........................................................................ 121 Summary .................................................................................................................. 124
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......... 125 Statement of the Problem ......................................................................................... 125 Methodology ............................................................................................................ 126 Summary and Discussion of the Findings ............................................................... 126
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 126 Research Question 1 ......................................................................................... 127 Research Question 2 ......................................................................................... 132 Research Question 3 ......................................................................................... 134
Implications for Practice .......................................................................................... 137 Implications for Future Research ............................................................................. 144
CASE STUDY REVISITED .......................................................................................... 148 APPENDIX A: CHRONOLOGY OF EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ............................................................................ 149 APPENDIX B: COPYRIGHT PERMISSION LETTERS ............................................. 154 APPENDIX C: INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL FOR CHRISTIAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES ........................................................ 157 APPENDIX D: RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL FOR CHRISTIAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES ............................................... 161 APPENDIX E: EXAMPLES OF EMAILS SENT TO RECIPIENTS OF SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................................................................................ 163 APPENDIX F: SURVEY OF USE OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FOR STAFF POSITIONS .................................................................................................................... 169 APPENDIX G: IRB APPROVAL LETTER .................................................................. 174 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 177
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Context of Student Affairs Staffing Practices .................................................... 14 Figure 2 Components of Staffing in Student Affairs ........................................................ 17 Figure 3 A Systems Approach to Effective Appraisals .................................................... 43
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Example of a Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS) ............................. 37 Table 2 Subgroups of Questions and Cronbach’s Alpha ............................................... 106 Table 3 Number of Students at Responding Institutions ............................................... 111 Table 4 Number of Staff and Administrators at Responding Institutions ..................... 111 Table 5 Use of Performance Appraisal for Staff Positions ............................................ 111 Table 6 Length of Time that Performance Appraisal Has Been Used ........................... 112 Table 7 Type of Performance Appraisal System Used .................................................. 113 Table 8 Description of How Performance Appraisal is Used ........................................ 114 Table 9 Frequency of Receiving a Formal, Written Performance Appraisal ................ 114 Table 10 How Performance Appraisal is Used .............................................................. 115 Table 11 Satisfaction with Performance Appraisal System ........................................... 117 Table 12 Challenges and Pitfalls of Performance Appraisal System ............................ 118 Table 13 Support by Leadership of the Institution ........................................................ 120 Table 14 Training Provided to Supervisors ................................................................... 120 Table 15 Non-completion of Performance Appraisal by Supervisor ............................. 121
xi
CASE STUDY
Robert, a long-time employee of his state’s most renowned university, was
promoted to the position of Dean of Student Affairs two years ago. The process to
receive this promotion had been quite competitive with several very qualified
applicants, from both within and outside the university, expressing interest in the
position. Robert felt very fortunate to have received the job offer, and as a result he
experienced a certain sense of responsibility and pressure to perform well in this
position.
However, after being in the position for two years, he had received no detailed
feedback from his supervisor about his job performance. He interacted with his
supervisor on a regular basis and occasionally heard encouraging words from his
supervisor, but there had not been a formal, intentional meeting with his supervisor in
which he had received written feedback. Therefore, Robert felt somewhat
uncomfortable about how he was performing in his present position.
He requested a meeting with his supervisor to discuss his performance and
future expectations. His supervisor responded, “Robert, if there was a problem with
your performance, I would have said something to you.” This was not what Robert
wanted to hear. So he said, “Yes, I appreciate that, but I would really value the
opportunity to discuss with you in more detail how specific areas of my responsibility
are going, as well as receive feedback from you as to how I might grow and improve in
my abilities and performance in the future.” His supervisor then asked him “Robert,
how old are you?” Robert said “60.” His supervisor said “Robert, I think you’re going
to make it.”
Robert left the conversation feeling uneasy about what had just transpired. He
realized his supervisor’s good intentions to convey encouragement to him, yet he felt
he had not received the feedback he needed to really understand how he was doing and
how he could improve in the future. He was very frustrated.
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
People are the lifeblood of colleges and universities. If there are no students,
faculty, administrators, and staff, there cannot be a college or university. People are their
primary resource, and the development of these people is their raison d'être. Due to the
paramount importance of the people who are in higher education, it is essential to
understand how well these personnel are performing in their roles and if they are
fulfilling the responsibilities for which they were hired.
In higher education the stereotypical notions of performance, assessment, and
appraisal are most often applied to the students. Questions are asked concerning how
students are performing academically in their studies as well as how well they are
adapting to their new social environment in higher education (Creamer & Winston,
1999). The academic success of students is typically measured by grade point averages
and professional examinations, while students’ adaptation to their new social
environment is measured through such things as retention rates and graduation rates.
However, another important question to be answered in the area of appraisal
addresses the evaluation of the faculty, administrators, and staff of colleges and
universities. These employees are hired to enable these institutions to help accomplish
the goals for which the institutions have been established. A critical question deserving a
thorough answer is whether or not the employees are in fact fulfilling the responsibilities
and requirements of their positions. Do colleges and universities really know how well
their employees are performing, and is this information being conveyed accurately and on
a timely basis to their employees? Are there well-developed appraisal systems in place
2
that are used on a consistent basis? These are examples of some of the basic questions
that the present work investigated while focusing on the performance appraisal of staff.
General Background
Appraising employee performance in organizations is a complex and challenging
task. It is an often unacknowledged but always inevitable component in the supervisory
process. Judgments about how individuals are performing will be made whether or not
there is a formal performance appraisal system because people regularly make judgments
about others (Grote, 1996; Seldin, 1988). Since many of these informal, uninformed
judgments will be erroneous, a formal appraisal system is needed to minimize the
possibilities of bias and flawed judgments.
Performance appraisal is an unavoidable element of organizational life (Brown,
1988; Longenecker & Fink, 1999). There are many decisions in modern organizations
that depend on performance appraisals, and they are widely used in most organizations
(Burkhalter & Buford, 1989; Davis, 2001; DeNisi, 1996; Wanguri, 1995). They are an
important piece of the process by which organizations attempt to direct themselves
(Kreitner, 1998; Landy & Farr, 1983), and they have been considered a key component in
the success of organizations for most of the twentieth century (Grote, 2002; Pettijohn,
Parker, Pettijohn, & Kent, 2001; Rasch, 2004; Starcher, 1996).
From the organization’s viewpoint, an important reason for performance appraisal
is the principle of accountability of its employees. Responsibility and accountability
must be aligned at every level of the organization, and performance appraisal encourages
3
this behavior. Non-alignment happens when employees are assigned tasks, but are not
held accountable for the fulfillment of these tasks (Performance Appraisal, n.d.). From a
different perspective, Bolman and Deal (2003, p. 281) suggest that performance
evaluation “ensures a responsible, serious, and well-managed image. Its widespread use
persists largely for symbolic reasons.” It suggests that an institution takes goals
seriously, and is concerned about its performance and the performance of its employees.
An important goal for organizations is the improvement of employee job
performance. It is generally accepted that performance appraisal is a necessary part of a
successful performance improvement method (Creamer & Winston, 1999; Landy & Farr,
1983; Shah & Murphy, 1995). Performance appraisal allows organizations to inform
their employees about their rates of growth, their competencies, and their potentials. It
enables employees to be intentional in creating their individual developmental goals to
help in their personal growth. There is little disagreement that if performance appraisal is
done well, it serves a very useful role in reconciling the needs of the individual and the
needs of the organization (Cleveland, Landy, & Zedeck, 1983; Conry & Kemper, 1993;
Grote, 1996). If used well, performance appraisal is an influential tool that organizations
have to organize and coordinate the power of every employee of the organization towards
the achievement of its strategic goals (Grote, 2002; Lewis, 1996). It can focus each
employee’s mind on the organization’s mission, vision, and core values. However, if
performance appraisal is not done well, Grote suggests the process can become the object
of jokes and the target of ridicule.
4
Purposes of Performance Appraisal
Performance appraisal has become a term used for a variety of activities through
which organizations seek to assess employees and develop their competence, improve
performance, and allocate rewards (Fletcher, 2001). Grote (2002) identified the
following purposes of performance appraisal:
1. Providing feedback to employees about their performance.
2. Facilitating decisions concerning pay increases, promotions, layoffs.
3. Encouraging performance improvement.
4. Setting and measuring goals.
5. Determining individual and organizational training and development needs.
6. Confirming that good hiring decisions are being made.
7. Provide legal support for personnel decisions.
8. Improving overall organizational performance (pp. 4-5).
Thomas and Bretz (1994) provide several additional purposes for performance appraisal
including motivating employees, assessing employee potential, improving working
relationships, assigning work more efficiently, and assisting in long-range planning.
Generally speaking, performance appraisal serves two basic purposes: the first is
evaluative (or administrative) as the term “appraisal” implies, and the second is
developmental (Brinkerhoff & Kanter, 1980; McKinnon, 1993; Rynes, Gerhart, & Parks,
2005). The evaluative function refers to the extent to which there has been progress
toward goals as a result of the employee’s efforts. It is backward looking where past
performance is reviewed in light of the results achieved. It can include the use of
5
performance appraisal for salary management, promotions, terminations, layoffs, and
identifying poor performance (Boswell & Boudreau, 2000). It is used to not only enable
organizations to make decisions about individuals, but also to compare candidates on
some type of objective basis (Brinkerhoff & Kanter).
The developmental function is forward looking, directed towards increasing the
capacity of employees to be more productive, effective, efficient and satisfied in the
future. It covers such things as job skills, career planning, employee motivation and
effective coaching between mangers and subordinates. It is any endeavor concerned with
enhancing attitudes, experiences and skills that improve the effectiveness of employees
(Boswell & Bourdeau, 2002).
Benefits of Performance Appraisal
Widespread attention has been given in recent years to the function of the formal
appraisal process because of the idea that a well designed and implemented appraisal
system can create many benefits for organizations. Mohrman, Resnick-West and Lawler
(1989) found that the appraisal process can: a) provide a managerial instrument for goal
setting and performance planning with employees, b) improve employee motivation and
productivity, c) encourage interaction concerning employee growth and development, d)
make available a basis for wage and salary changes, and e) generate information for a
variety of human resource decisions.
Murphy and Cleveland (1995) defined four ways in which performance appraisal
can help organizations. First, performance appraisal can improve organizational
6
decisions including reward allocation, promotions, layoffs and transfers. Second,
performance appraisal can improve individual career decisions and decisions about where
to focus one’s time and effort. Individual employees must make many decisions
concerning their present and future roles in an organization. They must decide how, or if,
they will develop future strengths and what sort of career goals they should pursue.
Performance appraisal can provide accurate, timely and detailed feedback to assist in the
quality of these decisions.
A third way that Murphy and Cleveland (1995) suggest that performance
appraisal can assist organizations is by providing a set of tools for evaluating the
effectiveness of current or planned ways of operating. Finally, performance appraisal can
impact employees’ views of and commitment to their organization. The quality of
performance appraisal and feedback has a role in the perceptions of the fairness,
legitimacy, and rationality of a wide range of organizational practices. Oberg (1972)
noted that appraisals can help encourage supervisors to observe their employees more
closely and to do a better job of managing them. None of these four benefits will
automatically accrue to an organization due to the mere presence of a performance
appraisal system (Murphy & Cleveland). However, an organization that does a good job
at performance appraisal may incur some or all of these benefits.
Difficulties with Performance Appraisal
The challenges associated with the design, implementation, and functional use of
appraisal systems are well documented, and they continue to be frustrating to both
7
academics and practitioners (Longenecker & Nykodym, 1996). In this section I will
briefly present four studies indicating some of the problems or challenges with
performance appraisal and then later in Chapter Two these issues will be elaborated upon.
In one review of appraisal literature, the authors found that regardless of an appraisal
program’s stated purpose, there were few studies that showed positive effects (Bernadin,
Hagan, Kane & Villanova, 1998). In another study, it was reported that many companies
are not satisfied with their performance appraisal systems and procedures (McNerney,
1995). In a study of 243 managers from 25 Fortune 1000 service and manufacturing
companies, 76% of the managers said they were less than satisfied with the performance
appraisal process (Longenecker & Fink, 2007).
There has been considerable research concerning the use of performance appraisal
for multiple uses (i.e., evaluative and developmental). The question being asked is
whether or not performance appraisal can be used simultaneously for both evaluative
purposes and for developmental purposes. The results have often yielded conflicting
findings and conclusions (Boswell & Boudreau, 2002). Some research has indicated that
the developmental and evaluative uses of performance appraisal are incompatible and
should not be used together, while other research has indicated there is either no
correlation, or a slight positive correlation, when they are used together.
The above studies suggest that although performance appraisal may have
widespread usage, there is much dissatisfaction and frustration by current users of these
systems. There is ongoing debate among practitioners, academicians, and scholars
concerning the actual effectiveness of performance appraisal (Schraeder, Becton, &
8
Portis, 2007). These studies serve to succinctly illustrate some of the controversies
surrounding this topic.
Impact of Organizational Structure and Culture on Performance Appraisal
Organizations differ in many ways including having different types of clients,
using different technologies, having employees with different skill-sets, developing
different structures and coordinating styles, and relating differently to their external
environments (Baldridge, Curtis, Ecker, & Riley, 1977). While there are common
elements in the various types of organizations including colleges and universities,
hospitals, businesses, government firms, and prisons, no two organizations are the same.
When considering the relevance of performance appraisal to colleges and universities, it
is important to understand these institutions’ distinct structural characteristics as
compared to other organizations and how these characteristics may influence the
acceptance and use of performance appraisal in colleges and universities.
In addition to organizational structure, organizational culture can also influence
the use of performance appraisal. Understanding the organizational culture of colleges
and universities can help clarify how campuses are being managed because culture seems
to have a causal impact on managerial style and decision practices (Masland, 2000). The
blend and predominance of various types of cultures at a particular institution can impact
management practices which can then affect whether or not performance appraisal is
used, the purposes for which it is used, and its success at the institution.
9
Accountability in Higher Education
Holding higher education employees accountable for measurable outcomes is a
relatively new occurrence (Heck, Johnsrud, & Rosser, 2000). This has been brought
about by the increase in competition for scarce resources and the decrease in the public’s
trust in higher education practices which have in turn resulted in significant demands for
colleges and universities to demonstrate their effectiveness and efficiency. Kerr, Gade,
and Kawaoka (1994) suggest that the high level of autonomy held by higher education
institutions may be eroding due to their costs rising more quickly than the level of
inflation and to increasing doubts about the integrity of conduct by institutions and
faculty. Institutions of higher education are being held to higher standards of
accountability to the public, to students, and to public officials. Londsdale (1998) argues
that the quality of institutional accomplishments is determined fundamentally by the
work of the employees individually and as a whole. Thus accountability, while being
most visible at the strategic level, actually begins with the institution’s employees
through the evaluation of their performance (Kemper, 2005).
Performance Appraisal in Higher Education
The emphasis on accountability has become an important mechanism for
policymakers’ efforts to exercise control over productivity in higher education. An
effective performance appraisal system is one of many methods that are useful for
assessing and improving productivity (Mani, 2002). Outside requests for accountability
10
have led to a greater importance being placed on the evaluation of outputs and formal
assessment (Austin & Gamson, 1983; Blackburn & Pitney, 1988).
Although the widespread use of performance appraisal in organizations has been
noted by various researchers, there is less known about the use of performance appraisal
in higher education in the United States. Within higher education there has been
considerable research done in the area of performance evaluation of faculty. However,
little research exists on the assessment of staff performance (Seldin, 1988). Higher
education has devoted little effort to appraisal and climate surveys for administrative
personnel (Cox & Downey, 2002). Winston and Creamer (1997) stated that in most
colleges and universities, employees report that performance appraisal is a weakness in
the overall employment practices. Evaluation is becoming a significantly more important
instrument for policymakers’ efforts to implement control over higher education
productivity, but there is little empirical work on the performance and effectiveness of
higher education administrative employees who contribute to this productivity (Heck et
al., 2000).
Statement of the Problem
The focus of this exploratory study was to determine if the Christian colleges and
universities in the United States that were members of the Council for Christian Colleges
and Universities (CCCU) were using performance appraisal with their staff as an
important management tool. The study was limited to this subset of Christian colleges
and universities because there was little written in the literature on performance appraisal
11
for these institutions, and because the researcher had an interest in these schools due to a
teaching relationship he had with one of the schools.
A review of the literature did not yield any study focusing on the use of
performance appraisal for staff positions in Christian colleges and universities.
Nonetheless, the present investigation was informed by the work on these issues in other
areas. For example, in a national study done by Creamer and Winston (1999) of student
affairs personnel, 33% of deans, 37% of directors, 27% of coordinators, and 26% of
support staff indicated they had not received a formal performance appraisal in the past
12 months. This study randomly selected 50 institutions from four Carnegie
classification types (research institutions, comprehensive colleges and universities, liberal
arts colleges, and two-year colleges) in three regions: the Northeast, the Midwest, and the
West. The study received responses from 121 institutions from an original sample size of
491 institutions. Of the 121 institutions that responded to the survey, 11% were research
universities, 36% were comprehensive colleges or universities, 20% were liberal arts
colleges, and 33% were from two-year colleges. In the survey questions that pertained to
performance appraisal, respondents were asked how frequently performance appraisal
took place, what information was used in the evaluation, and what type of follow-up took
place after the performance appraisal was completed. The results suggest that a
significant number of administrative staff are not receiving appraisals. These results are
less than the 75% to 90% of all companies that use a formal performance appraisal
system (Grote, 2002). Overall, there is modest empirical work concerning the
accomplishments and effectiveness of higher education staff (Heck et al., 2000). Latham
12
and Wexley (1980) argued that performance appraisal is the most important system for
managing human resources within organizations. Therefore, it is essential to determine if
these colleges and universities are using this important management tool.
The budgets for institutions of higher education have high labor content and their
budgets are primarily devoted to personnel expenses (Johnsrud, 2002). Their success
significantly relies upon superior faculty, administrators, and staff. Nevertheless,
colleges and universities are not known for their consideration of human resource issues
as they pertain to the quality of work life on campus for their employees.
This study determined, based on the input of the Human Resource Director at
each institution, how widespread the usage is of annual performance appraisal systems
for the staff of Christian colleges and universities that are members of the CCCU. The
study sought to understand the challenges and pitfalls that the institutions have in using
them, and investigated the benefits received from, and the challenges encountered in,
their performance appraisal systems. If these institutions were not using this tool or not
using it effectively with their staff, they could have been overlooking the significant
benefits that a performance appraisal system can create. Using performance appraisal
would provide one way for them to meet the increasing accountability demands they are
experiencing from policymakers and to create organizational focus and achieve the
outcomes they desire to achieve. This is particularly true in times of economic crisis
when performance appraisal can help institutions use their resources more efficiently.
13
Conceptual Framework
This study of performance appraisal in Christian higher education institutions was
based on a conceptual framework developed by Winston and Creamer (1997) that
describes staffing practices in Student Affairs Divisions of colleges and universities.
While the Winston and Creamer model focused on the Student Affairs Divisions of
colleges and universities, the principles contained in the model should apply equally to all
administrative staff and not just Student Affairs staff. The authors emphasized staffing
practices because it is through these practices that colleges and universities live out their
fundamental beliefs about the value and worth of their people and the fundamental goals
of the institution. In their staffing model, these authors identified the most important
forces and conditions that affect student affairs staffing practices within (a) the context of
the external environment and (b) the institutional culture (see Figure 1).
In the external environment these forces and conditions consist of economic
conditions, political influences, laws and regulations, and academic reputation.
Economic conditions refer to the U.S. and world economies and their impact on both the
higher education institutions and the number of people seeking admission to colleges and
universities. (Winston & Creamer, 1997). Political influences refer to those people who,
while not directly connected with the institution, try to exert influence on various aspects
of its operations and include such people as public office holders, alumni, religious
groups and spokespersons, special interest groups, local community members and
leaders, parents, present or potential donors to the institution, and commercial operations
wanting to sell their services to the institution (Winston & Creamer, 1997).
14
Note. From Improving Staffing Practices in Student Affairs (p. 22), by R.B. Winston and D.G. Creamer, 1997, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Copyright 1997 by Jossey-Bass, Inc. Reprinted with permission of Wiley-Liss, Inc. a subsidiary of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Figure 1 Context of Student Affairs Staffing Practices
15
There are many complicated laws and regulations concerning higher education and they
come from many sources including state and federal constitutions, statutes, administrative
rules and regulations, common law, and case law. There are also academic customs and
usage, contracts, and institutional rules and regulations that apply. The final external
environmental force to be considered is the academic reputation of the institution which
is a major factor in its ability to recruit new personnel. The greater the reputation of the
institution, the higher the caliber of recruits that can be expected to apply. Overall then,
these four external environmental factors influence staffing practices within an
institution.
There are also institutional culture factors that impact staffing practices. To
understand staffing within an institution, the circumstances or culture must be understood
in which the organization exists and from which it gains its meaning. Winston and
Creamer (1997, pp. 26-39) describe seven of these factors: (a) geographical location of
the institution, (b) institutional resources, (c) affirmative action, (d) collective bargaining
agreements, (e) administrative culture, (f) work ethos, and (g) expectation of Student
Affairs.
Within the context of the external environment and the institutional culture
described above, Winston and Creamer (1997) define five essential elements of their
staffing model for Student Affairs: recruitment and selection, orientation to position,
supervision, staff development, and performance appraisal (see Figure 2). While these
five elements of the staffing model are interlinked and have overlapping activities, the
16
current study focuses primarily on the fifth component which is performance appraisal
and how it applies to those employees in staff positions.
Winston and Creamer (1997) suggest that for performance appraisal to be most
useful, it must be inherently joined to both supervision and staff development. They
define performance appraisal as “an organizational system comprising deliberate
processes for determining staff accomplishments for the purpose of improving their
effectiveness” (p. 43). In their research, they found that in higher education performance
appraisal is frequently either looked upon in a negative way because it criticizes peoples’
efforts, or indifferently because it is merely a paper exercise that has little to do with
other aspects of institutional life or work conditions.
There are certain principles or system requirements that are necessary for
performance appraisal to be successful. These principles include a dual focus on
employee and organizational improvement; a link from performance appraisal to
institutional productivity and rewards; the recognition of contextual constraints on
employee performance; the constant involvement of all stakeholders; the requirement that
procedures are clear, open, and fair; ongoing review and update of position requirements;
the requirement that appraisers show leadership and recognize their unique contribution
to the results of the appraisals; and the avoidance of all systematic biases (Winston &
Creamer, 1997, pp. 281-282). These principles are explained in more detail below:
1. Focus on both staff and organization improvement. The primary reason for
performance appraisal is improvement. The needs of the organization are the
17
Note. From Improving Staffing Practices in Student Affairs (p. 40), by R.B. Winston and D.G. Creamer, 1997, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Copyright 1997 by Jossey-Bass, Inc. Reprinted with permission of Wiley-Liss, Inc. a subsidiary of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Figure 2 Components of Staffing in Student Affairs
underlying reason for establishing staff positions, and performance appraisal
systems exist to help guide staff to achieve the goals of the organization. But
performance appraisal systems do not exist solely or even primarily as a
control mechanism. Their primary purpose is organizational functioning
through staff and institutional improvement.
18
2. Link performance appraisal to organizational productivity and rewards.
Individual employees benefit from performance appraisal and should have a
clear association to organizational achievement using a recognized reward
system. Not having this clear link may result in negative consequences on
employee morale and productivity.
3. Recognize contextual constraints on employee performance. Employees work
in situations that can be shaped by circumstances beyond their control, so
performance appraisal must consider both individual and environmental
conditions.
4. Ensure ongoing participation of all stakeholders. All the staff should be
involved in the design and implementation of the performance appraisal
system to encourage their ownership and to promote the credibility of the
system. The system will be flawed to the extent that staff do not participate in
the complete process.
5. Ensure system clarity, openness, and fairness. For the system to be effective,
the employees must understand it well and have the confidence that the
system is fair to all staff. This can be accomplished by reviewing the system
on a regular basis.
6. Complete a regular review and update of position requirements. It is
important that all position descriptions are up-to-date so that they reflect the
current job demands. Because the environmental circumstances can and often
19
do change, both the employee and his/her supervisor need to recognize the
most current expectations at the time of the appraisal.
7. Require leadership from supervisors and recognize the importance of their
contribution to the results of the appraisal process. Supervisors, who act as
leaders of their departments and divisions and recognize that they do shape
both individual and organizational behavior, are more likely to be effective in
carrying out their duties in the appraisal process than supervisors who perform
their duties unthinkingly and without interest.
8. Prevent systematic biases. The existence of any system biases, either
unintentional or intentional, will most likely cause the failure of the
performance appraisal system. If the staff do not trust the system because of
biases toward certain behaviors or practices, they will lose confidence and not
derive any benefit from the system.
The above principles of staffing practice confirm that performance appraisal is a complex
and sensitive organizational system that must be planned and implemented well to be
successful.
In Chapter Four of this current study, the data is analyzed using the principles that
Winston and Creamer (1997) determined to be necessary for successful performance
appraisal. The analysis compares similarities and differences between them, and it
determines if any new requirements for successful performance appraisal are identified.
20
Research Questions
This exploratory study sought to advance the knowledge base concerning the use
of performance appraisal in Christian higher education, and it was guided by the
following research questions:
1. To what extent are the Christian colleges and universities in the United States
that are members of the CCCU using performance appraisal for their staff?
2. What benefits do these institutions receive from their performance appraisal
systems?
3. What are the challenges and pitfalls these institutions experience using a
performance appraisal system?
Limitations and Delimitations
The limitations of this study include the following:
1. It was assumed that the survey participants (Human Resource directors) at
each institution had sufficient knowledge and understanding of their
performance appraisal system to answer the survey questions accurately and
truthfully, but this was not verified.
2. Although the entire population was surveyed, a potentially low response rate
to the survey could reduce the degree to which the results were representative
of the population. This could reduce the validity of the conclusions drawn
from the results of the questionnaire as they apply to the entire population.
The delimitations of this study include the following:
21
1. This study researched the use of performance appraisal in the 108 institutions
in the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU), a subset of all
U.S. colleges and universities, and this may limit the inferences that can be
drawn from this study as they might apply to all colleges and universities.
2. This study focused on the use of performance appraisal among the staff
positions only and it did not include faculty or administrators.
Definition of Terms
Administrative Appraisal: refers to the procedures used to assess the performance
of staff (Berquist & Tenbrink, 1977).
Assessment: “The systematic collection, review, and use of information about
educational programs for the purpose of improving student learning and development”
(Daugherty, 2001).
Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU): a group of colleges and
universities that agree to the criteria for membership in the CCCU which include (a) a
strong commitment to Christ-centered higher education, (b) location within the U.S., (c)
full regional accreditation, (d) primarily four-year comprehensive colleges and
universities, (e) broad curricula rooted in the arts and sciences, (f) Christians hired for all
full-time faculty and administrative positions, and (g) sound finances. Institutions
become members of the CCCU by fulfilling the application requirements established by
the CCCU.
22
Evaluation: The process of interpreting a measurement by means of a specific
value, or set of values, to determine the degree to which the measurement(s) represent a
desirable condition (Daugherty, 2001).
Human Resource Director: an employee of the college or university who has
direct oversight and responsibility for the Human Resource department, or who has
oversight of the Human Resource department as one of several of his or her
responsibilities.
Job performance: refers to how well employees satisfy the requirements and
responsibilities of their position.
Performance Appraisal: a term used for a variety of activities through which
organizations seek to assess employees and develop their competence, improve
performance, and allocate rewards (Fletcher, 2001).
Performance Appraisal Methods: techniques and instruments developed and
designed for the purpose of measuring and assessing employee performance in a
systematic format that can include narration, documentation, rank ordering, rating scales,
behaviorally anchored rating scales, checklists, essays, critical incidents, and
management by objectives.
Performance Appraisal System: a group of interactive processes determining job
expectations, writing position descriptions, determining appraisal criteria, developing
assessment tools, and collecting and reporting results (Brown, 1988).
Staff: includes those employees at a college or university that are working in
support services including such areas as student housing, maintenance, food service,
23
security, human resources and accounting. Staff does not include faculty or
administrators.
Significance of the Study
A review of the literature indicated that although there is significant literature on
the use of performance appraisal in the for-profit world, there is considerably less
literature available in the field of higher education. Within higher education, most
research focuses primarily on faculty appraisal, with much less research completed for
staff positions. Within the area of staff positions, the literature includes little information
on such topics as how widespread is the usage of performance appraisal, the benefits and
challenges derived from using these measures, and how performance appraisal is used
within these institutions. Additional knowledge is needed in this area since there is
considerable research indicating that performance appraisal, if done well, creates benefits
to organizations (Cleveland, Landy, & Zedeck, 1983; Grote, 1996; Murphy & Cleveland,
1995).
This topic is relevant to CCCU institutions because little is known about the use
of performance appraisal for the staff in these 108 colleges and universities. This study
will enable CCCU members to understand how widespread the use of performance
appraisal is for the staff within the CCCU as well as understand how performance
appraisal is being used and the benefits that are derived from its use. The results of this
study can be used by individual members of the CCCU to give impetus to either begin
using, or to improving, their existing appraisal systems. This study will also contribute to
24
the broader understanding of how widespread the use of performance appraisal is for staff
within all institutions of higher education, as well as to the understanding of how they use
performance appraisal and what their benefits and challenges are. This study did not
research the use of performance appraisal for faculty or administrators at the institutions
within the CCCU, nor did it review the use of performance appraisal for any staff at non-
member schools.
Summary
The purpose of this chapter was to introduce the topic of performance appraisal
and its use in higher education. This chapter described the relevant issues of performance
appraisal including its purposes, benefits, challenges, the impact on organizational culture
and governance, and accountability. It also described the statement of the problem that
was researched, the conceptual framework that was used as a basis for the research, the
research questions used, and the significance of the problem that was researched.
The next chapter traces the historical development of performance appraisal, and
then describes the development and use of performance appraisal for the staff in colleges
and universities.
25
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Historical Development of Performance Appraisal
Early Beginnings
While the importance and usage of performance appraisal has grown over the past
45 years, the formality of evaluating employees through the use of performance appraisal
has been present for centuries (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995). It can be traced back to the
third century A.D. when Sin Yu, Chinese philosopher, was critical of a prejudiced rater
working for the Wei dynasty on the basis that “the Imperial Rater of Nine Grades seldom
rates men according to their merits but always according to his likes and dislikes”
(Patten, 1977, p. 352). In the 1500s, St. Ignatius Loyola developed a process to assess the
members of his religious order (Lopez, 1968). In 1648, the Dublin (Ireland) Evening
Post purportedly rated lawmakers using a rating scale based on personal character traits
(Hackett, 1928 as cited in Murphy & Cleveland, 1991). The first business use of merit
rating was probably made by Robert Owen at his cotton mills in New Lanark, Scotland,
in the early 1800s (Heilbroner, 1961). In the cotton mills, wooden cubes of various
colors representing various levels of merit and achievement were hung over each
employee’s work area. As employee performance varied, the wooden cube was changed
to reflect it.
Development of Performance Appraisal in the United States
The formal use of performance appraisal in the U.S. probably began in 1813,
when army General Lewis Cass gave the War Department an assessment of each of his
26
employees using such expressions as “a good-natured man” or “knave despised by all”
(Bellows & Estep, 1954, p. 118). In 1854, the U.S. Congress established the first Federal
pay structure for Federal employees, but it did not require performance appraisals to
analyze job requirements as a starting point for establishing pay (Evolution of White-
Collar Pay, n.d.). The Pendleton Act was passed in 1883, which established a
performance-based employment structure and generated the necessity for a system for
defining job-related tasks and evaluating job applicants (see Appendix A). The concept
of performance evaluation and linking pay to performance for Federal employees began
to emerge at this time. The Bureau of Efficiency established a standardized efficiency
rating system in which departments rated employees’ performances and changed their
compensation based on the rating.
In 1923, Congress passed the Classification Act that established a graphic rating
scale for Federal employees in which employee performance was rated by supervisors
along a scale for every task completed. One challenge that was found in this system was
the need for greater standardization in job categories and pay rates before this system
could operate effectively. This need was addressed in 1950, with the passage of the
Performance Rating Act which required agencies to develop appraisal methods with the
approval of the Civil Service Commission. Its purpose was to identify the most and least
effective workers and to develop relationships between supervisors and employees. This
Act allowed agencies to create their own performance appraisal procedures that followed
legal and Civil Service Commission guidelines.
27
The complexity of the United States work environment increased in the following
decades and the Federal Government faced stiffer and increasing performance
expectations from its employees (Evolution of White-Collar Pay, n.d.). It was in this
environment that the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 was introduced by President
Carter and passed by Congress with the purpose of improving the management of the
Federal Government. This Act mandated agencies to utilize appraisal systems for all
Federal employees. It included such things as appraisals based on job-related
performance criteria and employee input utilized in developing performance
requirements. Also, results of the appraisals had to be used in making decisions
concerning training, promotion, retention, and the removal of employees. Appeals of
appraisals were not allowed outside the agency.
Another influencing factor in the progress of performance appraisal in the U.S.
was the work of industrial psychologists at Carnegie-Mellon University and their work in
the choice of salesmen and man-to-man rating forms based on trait psychology (Scott,
Clothier, & Spriegal, 1961). The man-to-man rating form was subsequently utilized by
the U.S. Army in World War I to evaluate the accomplishments of officers (Scott et al.).
In 1952 some reports were produced for the U.S. Army that directly addressed the rating
process (Cleveland, Landy & Zedeck, 1983).
Man-to-man ranking by department is not used commonly in business or in
assessing performance, but it can be a useful technique for deciding the priority of
layoffs. In the late 1960s it was used by numerous organizations to make dismissal and
retention decisions when they suffered reductions in government contracts (Patten, 1977).
28
This approach was given the name the “totem approach” to employee reductions.
Appraisal of business employees became accepted and used after World War I while the
appraisal of managers did not become popular until after World War II (Murphy &
Cleveland, 1995).
Performance appraisal had become an established management tool in many
organizations by the early 1950s (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995). In 1962, performance
appraisal was being used in 61% of the organizations examined (Spriegel, 1962). The
1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1966 and 1970 Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission guidelines for control of selection procedures applied significant pressure on
organizations to document their appraisal systems (DeVries, 1986). The necessity for
quick improvements in organizational appraisal practices was brought about by federal
legislation and the civil rights and women’s movements of the 1960s and 1970s (Murphy
& Cleveland).
Trends in Performance Appraisal
Evaluation Methods
Performance evaluation methods are the systems and processes through which
appraisal is carried out in an organization. The methods include determining the types of
data collected and evaluated in the appraisal, the forms and frequencies of
communication that take place between supervisors and their employees, and the various
types of evaluation tools used to measure performance. It is important to understand the
evaluation methods used because they can influence the usefulness of the appraisal
29
system in an organization and the perceived or actual benefits gained from its use.
Performance evaluation methods have been described by multiple authors in various
ways. Three of these methods, as described by Landy and Farr, Berquist and Tenbrink,
and Sims and Foxley, are mentioned here. Landy and Farr (1983) define a method in
which the performance appraisal data is organized into two groups: judgmental or
subjective measures and nonjudgmental or objective measures. Although judgmental
measures are more broadly used, objective performance measurements (e.g. production
rates, time to complete a task, and scrap rates) have been helpful measures of
performance for routine, manual jobs since the 1940s (Rothe, 1946). Other non-
judgmental indices that do not assess performance directly but provide information on the
general health of the organization, including absenteeism, turnover, and accidents, have
also been researched (Campbell et al., 1990).
Objective measures do have their unique problems, however. For example,
absentee measures are not applicable to many jobs, are often inaccurate, are caused by a
variety of reasons depending on the meaning of absence, differ in the duration of
observation, and do not show a relationship with each other (Murphy & Cleveland,
1995). Using turnover as a standard is complicated because it is hard to differentiate
between voluntary and compulsory turnover. Grievances are not typically obtainable for
nonunion employees. Accidents could be caused by the people or by their environments.
The rate of promotion or salary increases are not good standards because the rate could
be controlled by a quota set by the organization and salary modifications could be
influenced by the economic well-being of the organization rather than employee
30
performance. These problems challenge the validity of the measures (Murphy &
Cleveland, 1995).
Landy and Farr (1983) also identified several problems with objective measures
and potential reasons why judgmental measures have been used instead by psychologists
for evaluating managerial behavior. First, objective measures tend to have low
reliability. For example, factors external to the individual, such as the organization’s sick
leave policies, may influence the reliability of absence measures or the period of
inspection may not be constant across measures. Another reason is that objective
measures may be obtainable for only a partial number of jobs. For example, it does not
make sense to collect information on tardiness or absences from sales representatives or
development employees who may not work a fixed number of hours per day or per week.
A final inadequacy of objective performance measures is the changing nature of skilled
and semi-skilled work. When employees who operate machines are replaced by
employees who just tend to a machine, the output of the job can become more reliant on
the machine functioning correctly and its related downtime, rather than upon the ability
and output of the machine operator. The changing nature of work implies that subjective
measurements may continue to be more popular and useful compared to objective
measures (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995).
The use of management by objectives (MBO) to define and measure job
performance is often used with managerial and executive performance. There is a
particular importance placed on the contribution of the employee to the organization’s
goals and results (Drucker, 1954). There are several elements common to MBO
31
programs. First, MBO includes involvement in goal-setting. The supervisor and the
subordinate work together to define the goals and performance measurements for the
subordinate. They decide what needs to be achieved and how the achievements will be
measured. Secondly, MBO entails objective feedback regarding advancement towards
accomplishing the goals. In a MBO system, performance is likely to be defined in terms
of measurable outcomes. However, the setting of goals, targets, and objectives is very
subjective, involving negotiation between the manager and the employee (Murphy &
Cleveland, 1995). If a high performing employee fails to achieve his or her goals, it is
not unusual for the manager to renegotiate objectives so that the manager can be sure that
the capable performer will obtain outcomes that are seen as good performance. Two of
the disadvantages of a MBO system include a significant amount of paperwork,
particularly in the beginning stages of a new system, and the concern that MBO tries to
make unclear responsibilities and goals exact and compels employees to measure
objectives that are not measurable (Berman, 1980).
In a second method of describing evaluation processes, Berquist and Tenbrink
(1977) found six primary approaches used to evaluate college and university
administrators:
1. Unstructured narration. In this approach, the supervisor provides a written
assessment of the employee’s strengths and weaknesses, along with
suggestions for improvement. It is assumed the supervisor will write a
thoughtful statement using firsthand knowledge of the employee and that this
approach will be as productive as any more formal approach. If it is done
32
well, it can provide excellent detailed information about the performance of
the employee. However, this approach makes it difficult to do comparisons
among several employees because each evaluation could focus on diverse
aspects of each employee’s performance.
2. Unstructured documentation. In this approach, the supervisor documents the
activities and accomplishments of the employee by requesting letters of
recommendation, interview data, daily logs, and ratings of other employees in
programs under the responsibility of the supervisor. The approach primarily
involves independent evaluation and does not represent a formal program. It
also does not produce information concerning the activities and successes, or
objectives and failures, of the employee during the appraisal time.
3. Structured narration. This approach requires the supervisor to answer a series
of questions about the employee’s performance. The questions might include
such things as what are the employee’s greatest strengths, where are the
greatest needs for improvement, what would this employee’s colleagues say
about this employee, and to what extent has the employee fulfilled the
following goal.
4. Structured documentation. In this approach the supervisor and employee
agree on the performance categories (e.g. job functions, skill areas,
performance objectives) that are meaningful for the emloyee’s position. This
can be done with the input of subordinates, peers, instructional employees,
and others who understand the position at hand. At the end of the evaluation
33
period, the employee provides an explanation of how he or she performed
against the performance categories. It is then up to the supervisor to
document the claimed successes of the employee.
5. Rating scales. This is the most widely used method of evaluating
administrative performance and many types of scales are used. Some
drawbacks to using scales include they are usually not tailored to specific
positions, the characteristics used for appraisal may not be appropriate or may
be incorrectly scaled, and scales do not provide the depth of understanding
that a thoughtful narrative appraisal provides.
6. Management by objectives. In this approach, as mentioned earlier, the focus
of the appraisal changes from the personal attributes of the employee to
performance in the job. It is a results-oriented rating technique that is
dependent on goal setting to create objectives for the employee.
These six approaches resemble, in many ways, the subjective measures described earlier
by Landy and Farr with the exception of management by objectives that was described by
both Landy and Farr (1983) and Berquist and Tenbrink (1977) as an objective measure.
In a third method for describing evaluation procedures, Sims and Foxley (1980)
provide four classifications used by student affairs professionals: comparative methods,
absolute standards, management by objectives, and direct indexes. Comparative methods
include: (a) rank-ordering all employees from lowest to highest in effectiveness; (b)
alternately choosing the most effective and then the least effective employee, moving
their names to separate lists and repeating the process until all names have been removed
34
from the initial list; (c) comparing each employee to every other employee and
determining a final ranking based on how many times the employee was ranked above
the other employees; and (d) a forced distribution where a certain percentage of the
employees are classified as top performers, perhaps a second group in the next tier, and
then another group assigned to the lowest performing group.
Absolute standards methods have several variations including critical incidents,
weighted checklists, forced choice, conventional rating, and behaviorally anchored rating
scales. Critical incidents involves identifying the significant requirements of a job and
the supervisor is asked to rate each employee on each category. Weighted checklists
involve compiling a list of employee goals that the supervisor uses for each employee to
determine which of the goals was completed. Forced choice requires the supervisor to
choose the most descriptive statements for each employee using a list of items that
differentiate between successful and unsuccessful completion and between desirable and
undesirable employee traits. Conventional rating involves rating employee traits on a
form using such categories as excellent, average, and poor. Behaviorally anchored rating
scales are a quantitative version of the critical incident method that uses scales anchored
in descriptors of actual position behavior and specific levels of performance.
Management by objectives was mentioned previously and does not need to be
reviewed again. The fourth classification described by Sims and Foxley (1980) is the
direct index method which typically uses the measurement of outputs from each
employee and is rarely used in student affairs.
35
The above three examples of evaluation methods provide a comprehensive
overview of the types of methods most often used by various organizations. They fall
along a continuum between subjective and objective methods and between unstructured
and structured methods.
Rating Scale Format
The rating scale format deserves additional explanation because most of the
research on performance appraisal is about the design of appraisal scales. The issues deal
with (a) comparisons between persons (norm-referenced criteria) and comparisons with a
standard (criterion-referenced formats), (b) use of trait compared to behavioral anchors,
(c) the best possible quantity of anchors, (d) establishing formats conducive to the
smallest number of rater errors, (e) scaling of anchors, and (f) comparison of format
validity (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995).
Within the rating scale format, most research has been done in the area of
criterion-referenced scales with the goal of increasing the measurement quality and the
values that such scales generate (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995). The research endeavored
to understand the meaning of the response categories or anchors, the kinds of anchors
(trait, behavior, adjective, number, etc.), and the quantity of anchors that yielded distinct
ratings and that raters found adequate. Other attempts to improve the graphic scale
included the Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales, the Behavioral Observation Scales,
the Mixed Standard Rating Scale, and the Forced-Choice Rating Scale.
36
Rating scales use words or phrases to indicate the extent to which a behavior or
attribute is present. In a rating scale using traits, a supervisor is asked to rate an
employee indicating the extent to which the employee is, for example, industrious,
energetic, or cooperative, using a 1-to-5 scale (where 1 equals “Never” and 5 equals
“Always”) based on how often the employee demonstrates that behavior. Since trait
scales are susceptible to rating errors (Brown, 1988), the behaviorally anchored rating
scale has gained more favor because it is consistent with job analysis and position
descriptions that are focused on behaviors rather than traits. Supervisors compare their
employees’ performance with descriptions of position-related behavior (see Table 1 for
an example of a behaviorally anchored rating scale).
When rating scales are used, there is an assumption that the appraiser is relatively
objective and precise. However, the appraiser’s memory could possibly be fallible and
the appraiser may subscribe to assumptions about the person being evaluated that may or
may not be accurate. The appraiser’s intentional or unintentional biases produce rating
errors. Seldin (1988) provides a list of five potential biases that could arise in this
situation:
1. Halo bias refers to the tendency of supervisors to be influenced in one area of
performance by the rating they gave their employee in another area of
performance. For example, a high rating in the area of leadership may
influence the rating given in interpersonal skills or job knowledge. A low
rating in self- development may carry over to a low rating in quality of work
or customer service.
37
Table 1
Example of a Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS)
Professional Development refers to the employee's personal commitment to, and growth in, job knowledge, interpersonal skills, job performance, and personal development. Exceptional Performance
Has a passion for professional development as reflected in the following ways:
• Actively pursues opportunities for relevant training • Is a model of seeking out and utilizing input and
feedback regarding his/her profession and performance from performance appraisals, peers, manager, etc.
• Is a model of maintaining a standard of excellence in all performance objectives
Very Good Performance
Has a demonstrated desire for, and commitment to, professional development as reflected in the following ways:
• Consistently takes advantage of opportunities for relevant training
• Consistently seeks input and feedback regarding his/her profession and performance from performance appraisals, peers, manager, etc.
• Strives to improve in all performance objectives Acceptable Performance
Has an acceptable understanding of the necessity for professional development as reflected in the following ways:
• Generally takes advantage of opportunities for relevant training
• Accepts input and feedback from performance appraisals, peers, manager, etc.
• Is aware of specific developmental needs and is willing to work on performance objectives that require improvement
Performance Requires Improvement
Lacks acceptable professional development as reflected in some or all of the following ways:
• Does not take advantage of opportunities for relevant training
• Has difficulty accepting input and feedback from performance appraisals, peers, manager, etc.
• Shows inadequate willingness to work on performance objectives that require improvement
Adapted from the Performance Appraisal System used at Wycliffe Bible Translators, 2009.
38
2. Leniency occurs when a supervisor gives a disproportionate number of
favorable or unfavorable ratings. For example, a kind, soft-hearted supervisor
might give consistently favorable ratings while an irritable supervisor might
be inclined to give consistently unfavorable ratings.
3. Central tendency bias refers to when a supervisor consistently gives average
ratings and avoids the favorable and unfavorable ends of the rating scale. This
both penalizes the outstanding performer and covers up the poor performance
of underachievers. It also has a detrimental impact on the morale of other
employees.
4. Recency bias occurs when recent events have more influence on the appraisal
than less recent events. An employee’s entire year of very favorable
performance can be negatively impacted by a single unfavorable event
occurring just before the performance evaluation is completed. Or on the
contrary, a mediocre performance over the course of a year can be
overshadowed by one very recent success.
5. Guessing bias occurs when the supervisor does not have relevant information
to render a meaningful judgment, but provides a response anyway based on
some aspect of the employee’s performance (pp. 49-52).
Seldin (1988) concludes that there is no simple way to evaluate performance despite
significant advancement in evaluation procedures. However, he further notes that much
of the concern over rating scales and bias is not warranted and that there are many ways
to successfully evaluate employee performance. Even though rating scales are a critical
39
area in performance appraisal supported by the research literature, it is not the focus of
this study.
Performance Appraisal and the Legal System
The performance appraisal process is subject to the same laws and principles as
are recruitment and hiring of employees in the area of equal employment opportunity.
The results of performance appraisal have a significant role in organizational decision-
making in areas including promotion, selection for training programs, payroll
administration, discipline, and terminations (Buford, 1989). In Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, discrimination is forbidden based on race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin. In 1967, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act was passed which
forbade discrimination against people age 40 and over. The Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was given responsibility for overseeing and
implementing these acts.
According to Murphy and Cleveland (1995), the Uniform Guidelines on
Employment Selection issued in 1978 by four US governmental agencies (the EEOC, the
Department of Labor, the Department of Justice, and the US Civil Service Commission)
are the single most significant influence on the development and use of performance
appraisal in the United States. The guidelines apply to tests and other measures which
are used in employment decisions (Baird, Beatty, & Schneier, 1987). They have been
adopted by the United States government to attempt to get rid of unfair discrimination in
organizations (Landy & Farr, 1983). Evaluations are considered to be tests and are
40
subject to guidelines enforced by the EEOC (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995). Therefore
performance appraisal becomes an important legal issue when used in making any type of
personnel decision. It was also ruled that performance appraisals could be reviewed in a
validation study. The Supreme Court questioned an empirical study to justify the results
because the measurements used were unclear and subject to numerous inaccuracies
(Bernardin & Beatty, 1984). Therefore, performance appraisals are subject to court
action or consideration for at least two reasons: a) the precision or strength of ratings
used to predict future performance and b) the precision or strength of ratings to assess
past performance. Also, because of EEOC guidelines and interpretation of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act in 1981, performance appraisals have emerged as
very appropriate for establishing a Bona Fide Occupation Qualification (BFOQ) such as a
maximum age limit. In order to assert a BFOQ, the organization must show that an age
limit is defensible by business need or for public safety.
In reviewing guidelines used for developing legally sound appraisals, Bernardin
and Beatty (1984) suggest that legally defensible appraisals should contain evaluation
measurements that are based on job requirements, and the standards should reflect
aspects of job performance rather than an overall rating. The expectations should be
defined in behavioral terms and must be shared with employees. A sound evaluation
system should require high-quality ratings and whenever possible, there should be
multiple evaluators rather than a single evaluator. Extreme ratings should be documented
with facts such as critical incidents, dates, and locations. Finally, a sound performance
appraisal system has a formal appeal process (Bernardin & Beatty). An additional
41
characteristic of a strong performance appraisal system, cited by Burkhalter and Buford
(1989), is that it should have a provision for written instructions which is a prerequisite
for methodical, unbiased appraisals. The higher the degree of perceived fairness of the
performance appraisal system by employees through such traits as clear expectation of
goals for the employees, allowing for the participation of employees in the evaluation
process, high quality ratings, multiple evaluators, and an appeal process, the less likely
the employees will be to engage in prolonged legal action (Martin, Bartol, & Kehoe,
2000).
Because of the many legal cases and their interpretation of the law pertaining to
performance appraisal systems, the historical view of appraisal as a measurement tool has
been strengthened and given increased significance and visibility. This heightened
awareness of performance appraisal systems underscores the significance of the
measurement qualities of appraisal, but it may also conceal the decision-making and
communication function of performance appraisal in organizations (Murphy &
Cleveland, 1995).
It is important for colleges and universities that are members of the CCCU to be
aware of the various legal issues surrounding the employment of their people and all
personnel decisions. A sound performance appraisal system can be used as an effective
tool for helping them ensure compliance with the relevant labor laws including Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (with an exemption from the religion clause under
Section 702), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.
42
Guidelines for a Successful Performance Appraisal System
Many researchers have studied the performance appraisal process with the goal of
determining the components of a successful performance appraisal system. The results
from three of these researchers are presented below. Longenecker and Fink (1999) found
that a successful performance appraisal system could be divided into three critical
components: systems design, managerial practice, and appraisal system support, with
each component containing several factors (see Figure 3). The systems design
component requires a clearly defined purpose for conducting performance appraisal. All
employees must understand why performance appraisal is being conducted and the
specific goals for it. The specific goals will allow the managers to select performance
criteria that will support the organization’s objectives and increase the motivation of the
managers to carry out the appraisals properly.
A second factor of effective systems design is to have the input of managers and
employees in the design, development, and choice of criteria used in the appraisal. This
promotes acceptance and ownership of the system by the employees which then increases
the effectiveness of the system. Without this involvement, the appraisal system risks
losing the support and credibility of the users of the system and can short-circuit their
sense of ownership of the system. Roberts (2003) notes that employee involvement is a
useful tool for increasing job-related autonomy, which is a prerequisite for employee
growth. Roberts also points out that employee participation gives employees voice in the
appraisal process which gives the employee the opportunity to refute performance
ratings, documentation, or verbal feedback with which they disagree.
43
Note: From “Creating effective performance appraisals,” by C. O. Longenecker and L.S. Fink, 1999, Industrial Management, 41(5), 18. Reprinted with permission of C. O. Longenecker.
Figure 3 A Systems Approach to Effective Appraisals
If employees are convinced the appraisal process is fair, they are more likely to
acknowledge their performance ratings, including unfavorable ones.
The third factor addresses the importance of user-friendly and easy-to-understand
appraisal procedures and forms. The performance criteria, rating procedures, and
feedback should be relevant and meaningful for both supervisors and their employees.
44
The forms should facilitate communication between the supervisors and the employees
concerning behaviors, work processes, and opportunities to improve.
The final factor within an effective systems design is an understanding by both
supervisors and their employees of the appraisal process and their roles in it. This
requires that they have training and education. The above four factors establish a firm
systems foundation needed to build the additional components of an effective appraisal
system which will now be discussed.
The second critical component of a successful appraisal system defined by
Longenecker and Fink (1999) consists of three factors concerning managerial systems
practices. The first factor is supervisors must conduct performance planning at the
beginning of the appraisal cycle. Performance planning includes writing job descriptions
and reviewing them with the employees, setting and agreeing upon goals, and
communicating the expectations of behaviors and results for which the employees will be
held accountable. The second factor is supervisors must provide ongoing, informal
feedback to their employees throughout the course of the appraisal cycle so that there are
no surprises when the formal appraisal takes place. Using frequent, informal feedback
allows minor issues to be addressed promptly rather than growing into more serious ones
over the passage of time. The final factor within the managerial systems practices
component is supervisors must be motivated to carry out effective appraisals. This is best
accomplished when the supervisors themselves are given effective appraisals by their
manager because it sets a good example of how appraisal should be done and it indicates
the importance of appraisal in the organization.
45
The third and final component of an effective performance appraisal system
describes organizational support of the appraisal system (Longenecker & Fink, 1999).
The first factor is performance ratings must be linked to organizational rewards. Greater
rewards should be linked to superior job performance because this increases the
motivation of the employees to perform. If this link is absent, employees will tend to
perform only to minimum standards. A second factor is appraisal systems must be
supported and demonstrated by the top administration. This can be accomplished by
administrators giving effective appraisals themselves, and by supervisors and employees
communicating about appraisal through memos, organizational newsletters, and
testimonials. A final factor is appraisal systems need continuing systems review and
changes/improvements to ensure that procedures are being followed correctly and are
effective. This could be accomplished by measuring the acceptance and trust of the
system by the employees, comparing the relationship between performance and rewards,
and reviewing the consistency of implementation of policies and procedures across all
departments and locations. Each of these three aforementioned critical components
serves to encourage effective appraisal practices by the individual managers who
ultimately determine the overall effectiveness of most appraisal systems.
Seldin (1988, pp. 29-33) provides a list of guidelines that are useful in developing
a successful evaluation program based on his research and years of practical experience
in higher education. Many of these guidelines are similar to those given by Longenecker
and Fink (1999) above and will not be listed here, but Seldin does suggest several
additional guidelines:
46
1. The primary purpose of appraisal should be to improve the quality of the
employees and their work, with an emphasis on the positive aspects of the
performance rather than the negative aspects. The appraisal should focus on
maintaining the strengths of the employees and building up their weaknesses.
2. The appraisal program, including its policies and procedures, should be in
accordance with civil rights legislation and affirmative action clauses so that it
can withstand any challenges from disgruntled employees in a court of law.
3. The appraisal program must relate closely with the traditions, purposes, and
culture of the institution. The policies and procedures that work well in one
college or university environment may not work well in another one.
4. The appraisal program must provide multiple sources of input for the
employee being rated, including peers and those people who report to the
employee, rather than just the input of the supervisor.
5. The appraisal system should be based on the concept that objective data is
collected and understood with the purpose of making a subjective decision.
The best system blends objective data into subjective judgment.
In their research on improving staffing practices in Student Affairs, Winston and
Creamer (1997, pp. 263-269) describe several factors that contribute to successful
appraisal systems. The first factor concerns the dual purpose of performance appraisal –
to provide evaluative feedback to the employee based on job requirements, and to provide
developmental feedback to help improve employee performance. Thus, appraisal is
related to both institutional needs (evaluative) and individual needs (developmental).
47
Other factors noted by Winston and Creamer include (a) emphasizing the importance of
relating the reward structure of the institution to the productivity of the employees, (b)
understanding and accepting the influence of the organization’s environment and culture
on the performance of the employees, (c) requiring the appraisal process to be both
participatory and interactive among all the stakeholders, and (d) having an appraisal
system that has clarity, openness, and fairness.
Finally, in a study completed by Smith (1996) at Nene College in the United
Kingdom, two recommendations were suggested as components of effective appraisal
systems that add to those mentioned above: (a) appraisal systems should have sufficient
resources to provide training for the appraisers and to meet the developmental needs of
the employees, and (b) there should be required follow-up meetings between the
supervisors and the employees after the initial appraisal.
Challenges of Performance Appraisal
Supervisors and employees generally have ambivalent attitudes, at best, toward
performance appraisal (Cederblom & Pemerl, 2002). Although most would recognize the
perceived benefit, in principle, of documenting, communicating, and setting goals in
areas of performance, many are also frustrated concerning the actual benefit received
from performance appraisal in their organizations. The benefits and rewards of
performance appraisal appear to be often overstated (Longenecker & Nykodym, 1996).
Nickols (2007) suggests that “the typical performance appraisal system devours
staggering amounts of time and energy, depresses and demotivates people, destroys trust
48
and teamwork and, adding insult to injury, it delivers little demonstrable value at great
cost” (p. 13). The findings of several studies addressing the challenges of performance
appraisal and the consequences of performance appraisal that is not done well are
summarized below.
Oberg (1972) mentions several pitfalls that are common to performance appraisal
systems: (a) they demand too much from supervisors, (b) standards and ratings vary
widely and sometimes unfairly, (c) personal values and bias can replace organizational
standards, (d) employees may not know how they are rated due to lack of
communication, (e) the validity of ratings is reduced by supervisory resistance to give the
ratings - particularly negative ratings, (f) negative feedback can demotivate employees,
and (g) they interfere with the more constructive coaching relationship that should exist
between superiors and their employees. Bretz, Milkovich, and Read (1992) found that
organizations continue to do things that undermine the effectiveness of the appraisal
process. Little time is spent on the appraisal process, raters are not trained and are not
held accountable, and the employee’s role in the process is overlooked along with
potentially valuable sources of performance information from the employee, peers, and
subordinates.
Murphy and Cleveland (1995) found that there are a number of ways that
performance appraisal can hurt an organization. First, the system can overemphasize the
work of the individual and underemphasize the work of the team. Second, performance
appraisal can often send mixed messages about the most and least important aspects of
job performance and about the importance of performing well. Third, performance
49
appraisal is often a source of discontent for the manager and the employee being
appraised.
In a research study conducted by Longenecker (2005), several consequences of
ineffective performance appraisals were identified. They included stifling performance
improvement, demotivating managers, breeding loss of managers’ confidence, causing a
loss of managerial focus on priorities, causing the breakdown of pay-for-performance
systems, reducing effectiveness of management development efforts, creating tension in
work relationships with supervisors, and causing ineffective goal setting. Longenecker’s
conclusion was that when performance appraisal is done well, it is an effective tool for
increasing managerial effectiveness. However, when it is done poorly, it is a
dysfunctional organizational practice and has many negative results.
In an article by Gray (2002) titled “Performance Appraisals Don’t Work,” he
gives five reasons why performance appraisal fails:
1. Many appraisal programs are implemented without appropriate training for
the managers giving the appraisals.
2. Performance appraisal encourages mediocrity by encouraging safe behavior as
opposed to risk-taking because managers set unchallenging goals to ensure
they meet their goals.
3. Most work in organizations is the result of a group effort rather than
individual work so individual performance appraisal is not a meaningful way
to measure performance.
4. Supervisor bias can cause inaccuracies in the appraisal feedback.
50
5. Performance appraisal does not provide protection from legal issues dealing
with discrimination and, when not done well, it can actually be a detriment to
the organization when faced with legal challenges by its employees.
The person who arguably had the most influence in shaping the view that
performance appraisal was not an effective tool to lead and manage organizations was
Deming (1986) in his book Out of the Crisis. He contends that performance appraisal has
significant negative drawbacks for organizations and he urges organizations not to use
individual performance appraisal but rather evaluate the performance of a unit or
department instead. Deming wrote about common cause for error in organizations and
argued that organizations that can eliminate common cause for error will improve. He
further stated that most common cause for error is found within organizational systems
rather than with the individuals within the organization. Another significant factor that
Deming gave for organizational success was maintaining a positive organizational
environment and that it was the responsibility of the organization’s leaders to drive out
fear from within the organization.
Deming (1986) suggested that there is a normal distribution of employee
performance within an organization with 95% of all organizational employees working
for the success of the organization. The remaining 5% of all employees have serious
problems and difficulties. Deming said that organizations use the performance appraisal
process unnecessarily to evaluate all the employees rather than using the process for only
the 5% that are having specific problems. An additional problem occurs when
organizations use performance appraisal to determine pay-for-performance, a process that
51
he felt contributed to fear and competition within the organization, because individuals
are singled out for increased rewards whereas in reality most work is done by groups of
people. A disciple of Deming, Peter Scholtes, went so far as to say that performance
appraisal, at best, does not work, and in the worst scenario, it can damage morale within
the organization (Scholtes, 1993 as cited in Rasch, 2004). Lewis and Smith (1994)
paraphrased relevant Deming principles as they would apply to higher education as
follows: “Eliminate performance standards (quotas) for faculty, administration, staff and
students (e.g. raise test scores by 10%, lower dropout rate by 15%). Eliminate
management by numbers and numerical goals. Substitute leadership.” They also said
“Remove barriers that rob faculty, administration, staff and students of the right to take
pride in and enjoy the satisfaction of personal performance and productivity. This means,
among other things, abolishing annual or merit ratings and management by objectives”
(p. 101). It is interesting to note that while Deming’s ideas on performance appraisal
have received some attention in practitioner appraisal literature, they have not received
any attention from researchers (Bretz et al, 1992). The notion of no individual feedback
seems unrealistic because even without formal appraisal, informal feedback by team
leaders and peers will most likely occur, and it could be less systematic and more subject
to biases.
To summarize the challenges facing performance appraisal, at one extreme are
those people who have expressed doubts about the validity and reliability of the
performance appraisal process. As we have just seen, some have even suggested that the
process is so inherently flawed that it may be impossible to perfect it (Derven, 1990). At
52
the other extreme, there are many strong advocates of performance appraisal and some
view it as a very critical aspect of organization life (Lawrie, 1990). Roberts (1998)
defined the two extremes concerning performance appraisal as running from “blind
advocacy to outright vilification” (p. 1). In between these two extremes there are varying
schools of thought and belief. While most people advocate the use of performance
appraisal, there are many different opinions on how and when to apply it (Performance
Appraisal, n.d.).
Development of Performance Appraisal within Higher Education
Holding higher education employees accountable for measurable goals is a
relatively recent occurrence (Heck, Johnsrud & Rosser, 2000). This is due to the increase
in competition for scarce resources and the decrease in the public’s trust in higher
education practices leading to significant demands for colleges and universities to prove
their effectiveness and efficiency (Alexander, 2000). Institutions of higher education are
being held to higher standards of accountability to their stakeholders including the public,
students, and public officials. Accountability, while being most visible at the strategic
level, actually begins with the institution’s employees through the evaluation of their
performance (Kemper, 2005).
Administration of Higher Education
Until the time shortly after the Civil War, the administration of higher education
was basically a one-man business (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). But during the time period
53
between 1870 and 1930 there was significant growth and expansion in the administrative
functions. Initially, the college president served many roles including teacher,
disciplinarian, librarian, keeper of the essential accounts of the institution, investor of the
institution’s money, and secretary of both the teaching staff and governing board. In
some of the larger colleges and universities, some delineation of these tasks had already
begun to take place. From this period forward, the growth of the administrative task was
very significant. The sequence in which secondary offices came about varied from school
to school. Among the next administrative offices to develop in the late 1880s and 1890s
were the librarian, registrar, and dean. The office of the registrar position developed at
the same time that the elective curriculum was increasing because academic bookkeeping
became more involved and complex. Business officers, directors of public relations,
directors of admissions, and other positions developed in the following century. The
office of the vice-president had its greatest growth in the twentieth century, which is also
when the position of chancellor was established. These positions were created to help
relieve the president from administrative duties and allow him more time to develop
educational policy.
In the evolution of these administrative positions in the 1900s, most of them
originally included some teaching responsibilities. For example, the librarian or registrar
duties might have been a part-time role of a faculty member, or the librarian might also
have been the registrar. There were many variations to suit the local institutional needs.
But in time, as the administrative roles increased, there was less time devoted to teaching
until there was none for most administrative positions. The growth of nonacademic
54
personnel grew so rapidly that by 1950, for example, the University of Minnesota had
4,000 nonacademic workers on their staff including clerks, statisticians, dietitians, and
truck drivers (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). As the number and importance of
administrative staff increased, so did the need for appraisal and accountability.
Seldin (1988) describes higher education institutions during the decades in the
mid-1900s as “serene institutions with few of the pressures of the bitterly competitive
outside world. Presidents, provosts, deans, and department chairs were scholar-educators
who saw themselves as first among equals. Administrative life on campus was marked
by collegiality, expanding budgets, and a leisurely work pace” (p. 1). These institutions
of higher education had been viewed as relaxed, low-pressure, good places to work
(Austin & Gamson, 1983). Many educational administrators stayed in their roles for ten
or more years due to the satisfying and relaxed life they enjoyed.
But the circumstances in the more recent past are very different. Directing
colleges and universities can now mean dealing with a series of insistent demands.
Collegiality on campuses has been supplanted by a “we” versus “they” attitude (Seldin,
1988). Budgets are stretched and the speed of the work place is faster. Lawsuits have
become more numerous over a range of issues and governments have imposed limiting
rules and policies. The call for accountability has increased significantly and it has
forced administrators to scrutinize the cost-effectiveness of each program and each
division as well as the effectiveness and accomplishments of each individual.
Administrative positions have become more specialized and require a more business-like
55
approach to administration. The job of the university manager has become more
multifaceted and more stressful (Seldin).
The emphasis on accountability has become an important mechanism for
policymakers’ efforts to exercise control over higher education productivity. Outside
requests for accountability have led to a greater importance on the evaluation of outputs
and formal assessment (Austin & Gamson, 1983). There were misgivings concerning the
effectiveness of colleges and universities raised in the early 1900s (Hall, 1904). The state
of New York established criteria for what a college must be to incorporate, but it did not
answer the question whether any college actually satisfied those criteria. The first
person to seriously raise this issue was Henry C. King, president of Oberlin College, in
1908-09 (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). King requested a group of faculty to draw up a list
of strategic questions to consider the problem and to help focus a direct inquiry into a
college’s effectiveness. This report from Oberlin is considered to be the beginning of the
survey movement in higher education. In 1910 the United States Bureau of Education
established a new position to assist colleges and universities with their survey needs. In
1912, the state of Virginia published a statewide survey of higher education. This
coincided with the period when industry used scientific analysis to measure its own
efficiencies under the guidance of Frederick W. Taylor. The motivation for greater
effectiveness also came from large educational foundations that were paying close
attention to the financial management of higher educational institutions. For example,
the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching was evaluating which
institutions met their criteria to profit from its pension plan (Brubacher & Rudy). Many
56
institutions did not qualify due to such issues as lack of cost-accounting systems and not
clearly distinguishing between endowment funds and funds for current expenses.
Discontent with the performance of universities was heightened in the 1960s and
1970s despite efforts by the universities to improve (Bergquist & Pawlak, 2008). Factors
influencing this discontentment included student disruptions on several campuses which
led to public distrust, and taxes that were increasing sharply while the income of
businesses and families was decreasing (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). New demands for
accountability from the skeptical public joined with new planning schemes that were
necessary when these institutions faced declining resources. Both of these issues
promoted the appearance of robust managerial leadership and deterred the laissez-faire
collegial leadership that was suitable and prevailing until the 1970s (Bergquist &
Pawlak). Universities were being asked to justify what they were doing by attesting to
the competence and effectiveness of their efforts. At the same time there was an ongoing
movement in business and government to use quantitative analysis to help the
management of fiscal matters. In the field of educational measurement there was an
evolving movement that placed significance on accuracy, dependability, and soundness in
the management of data. Taxpayers and the government were demanding that
universities be held accountable for their expenditures of public money (McConnell,
1971). Alexander (2000) claimed, “A new economic motivation is driving states to
redefine relationships by pressuring institutions to become more accountable, more
efficient, and more productive in the use of publicly generated revenues (p. 411).”
Additionally, “an increasing number of educational leaders are now exhibiting an
57
awareness that the status quo is no longer a viable option for higher education.” Kerr,
Gade, and Kawaoka (1994) noted that higher education was moving toward a market
economy. Accountability was being sought in areas including cost regulation, learning
outcomes, codification of the internal decision-making process, and equal access for
women and minority groups. Two additional items placed high on the accountability
agenda were managerial efficiency and centralizing management which could be
accomplished in part through use of performance appraisal because these items could be
implemented and evaluated using the appraisal process (Henry, 1972).
Colleges and universities have provided a variety of organizational data including
retention and graduation rates, faculty workload studies, and job and career placement
records (Heck et al., 2000). Assessing the performance of administrators may well
provide needed and useful information about the performance of the university, but it
may represent high stakes assessment of individuals. This means that measures of
employee effectiveness could be tied to their promotion, salary increases, contract
renewal, or retention. Academic administrators today are expected to deal with a variety
of specialized issues including budgetary and fiscal matters, to be able to interact with
various government agencies, courts, and trustees, and have skills in public relations.
The administrator is also expected to have skills in management, human relations, budget
analysis, and strategic planning. Austin and Gamson (1983) refer to the new breed of
academic administrator as a politician, a zoo keeper, an entrepreneur, and a machine
operator because of the wide variety of skills and experience he or she needs to be
successful (p. 55).
58
Changing Expectations and Roles of Academic Administrators
College administrators have embraced the systems and procedures of business and
public relations professionals. They manage by objectives, form marketing groups, and
use terminology from the business world such as cost-benefit analysis, market share, and
investment opportunity. They have the skills necessary to deal successfully with
newspaper editors, elected officials, budget administrators, alumni, and faculty leaders
(Seldin, 1988).
There has been recognition that colleges and universities have become something
more than a group of educators and that these institutions can benefit from the same
management standards that are used by for-profit organizations. Deans, for example,
“today oversee professional organizations (colleges) that are in some ways similar to
large professional partnerships or organizations in the private sector, such as those found
in law and accounting firms” (Wolverton, Gmelch, Montez, & Nies, 2001, p. 106).
Keller (1983) has noted that “more and more, academic leaders are beginning to sense
that unless their campuses have some solid, rational management they may not make it
through the next decade, or may not pass through the period without wounds and
distentions” (p. 57).
Seldin (1998) noted that presidents, provosts, deans, and department chairs have
brought a different management style to higher education. They are adapting proven
concepts from business management, particularly from the non-profit sector, and are
using the findings of organizational behavior, psychology, and administrative research.
59
Seldin found in his research that there were seven components of this new style of
management:
1. Administrators have become more active by helping select priorities,
formulating academic strategies, and providing active leadership. Their
involvement in managing the institution is much greater now than in the past.
2. Financial considerations have become more important. Finances and
academics have come together so that departments and institutions evaluate
financial consequences when they address new academic curriculums. Also,
administrators confer with faculty, deans, and provosts concerning the
educational implications of financial decisions being considered. Most
campus operations are non-academic and include such areas as housing,
maintenance, accounting, bookstores and security. These operations often fit
well with current business practices, and to save funds for the academic side,
these nonacademic areas are getting heightened attention.
3. Technology has become a necessity for management. Academic
administrators must have excellent computer understanding and know how to
use existing technology.
4. Campus governance has been reshaped to become more participatory and
more consultative in decision-making. Institutions bring in faculty, key
administrators, and students to advise on decisions that impact them.
5. Administrators are using entrepreneurial skills to raise money, organize
support for new programs, and give a sense of direction to their institutions.
60
They use their power to allocate resources among various institutional
programs.
6. Closer attention is being paid to the external environment, the market and
strategic planning. There is more awareness of the political, economic, and
cultural environment around higher education institutions and to the business
of providing educational services. The academic administrator has changed
the higher educational planning process into a public affair based on clear
strategies and coherent goals supported by hard data.
7. The evaluation and development of administrators has become more
important. The academic administrator faces complex challenges, and to
address them necessitates a significant amount of expertise in finance,
governance, technology, communications, computers, and strategic planning
(pp. 4-9).
To ensure adequate competency in these areas, colleges and universities are
giving closer attention to the administrators’ abilities, competencies, and effectiveness.
These institutions realize that evaluating and developing administrative performance can
bring about positive change.
Faculty Performance Appraisal in Higher Education
It is helpful to briefly consider some of the issues related to faculty appraisal
because faculty appraisal has had an influence on the acceptance and use of performance
appraisal of staff at colleges and universities. The appraisal of faculty has a lengthy
61
history, unlike the appraisal of staff which is relatively brief, but there has always been a
degree of controversy that has surrounded it (Braskamp & Ory, 1994). Faculty and
administrators have not always seen appraisal as a good use of time, although it is a
needed one. Its usefulness continues to be one of the most debatable and sensitive issues
on campuses. Also, faculty give varying credibility to the appraisal of the different facets
of their work. Research productivity is considered the easiest to measure equitably, while
measuring teaching effectiveness and the quality of professional service is often not
judged at all.
However, while faculty are more willing to support the assessment of their
research compared to the assessment of their teaching or service activities, they do have
some concerns with the current evaluation methods. Boyer (1990, p. 34) argues that “the
full range of faculty talent must be more creatively assessed. It is unacceptable, we
believe, to go on using research and publication as the primary criterion for tenure and
promotion when other educational obligations are required.” He goes on to note that
many faculty are displeased with the current appraisal procedures because they “restrict
faculty, distort institutional priorities, and neglect the needs of the students” (p. 35).
Part of the controversy surrounding the appraisal of faculty is the lack of a clear
definition of exactly what the work of the faculty consists of and what is being evaluated.
Clarity is needed in defining the work of the faculty before it can be measured. The
following section addresses the issues that deal with identifying the work of the faculty,
which then helps define what will be assessed.
62
The Work of Faculty
A three-part classification of the work of faculty that is very common includes
research, teaching, and service (Clement & Stevens, 1989; Dilts, Haber, & Bialik, 1994).
Braskamp and Ory (1994) use an expanded four-part categorization which includes
teaching, research and creative activity, practice and professional service, and citizenship.
A brief description of each of these four categories follows.
Teaching includes classroom instruction, conducting laboratories, coaching
interns and graduate students, and advising students in areas including which classes to
take and career opportunities in their field of study. There is importance attached to
creating a learning environment that enhances student learning opportunities and
motivates student learning. The academic environment should emphasize cooperation
and working together rather than competition, and high standards of excellence rather
than ranking students against each other.
Research and creative activity include the various forms of discovering and
integrating knowledge, critical analyses, and visual art performances. In this category,
the creative arts are given comparable status to research activity because the amount of
ingenuity and discipline required in the creative arts is similar to what engineers or
scientists incorporate in their work. In the category of research and creative activity, the
scholarship of discovery is critical because without new discoveries and insights, there
would be little need for teaching and providing service to the community. Society has
given colleges and universities the responsibility to search for and discover new
knowledge for its own sake. The scholarship of integration, as defined by Boyer (1990,
63
p. 18), is “making connections across the disciplines, placing the specialties in larger
context, illuminating data in a revealing way, often educating nonspecialists, too.” The
scholarship of discovery and the scholarship of integration cannot be completely
separated because the established disciplines have common concepts and knowledge
bases.
The third of the four-part categorization of the work of faculty is practice and
professional service. This focuses on solving the problems of society using the
knowledge, expertise and professional judgment of the faculty, and it can include such
things as public service, service to the university, outreach, application of knowledge, and
practice. The emphasis is on the significant value of knowledge and the connection
between colleges and universities and society. Braskamp and Ory (1994, p. 48) describe
one purpose of a college or university “is to encourage faculty to become more involved
in knowledge-linking.”
The fourth part included in the work of faculty is citizenship which Braskamp and
Ory (1994) put in a separate category to highlight its importance in faculty life and work.
It is reflected in many types of faculty work and can be divided into three forms:
1. Institutional contributions that facilitate and promote the growth and
advancement of the institution. Examples of activities include managing a
campus unit, serving as a member of an institutional committee, mentoring
other faculty or staff, and participating in the governance of the institution.
2. Disciplinary and professional contributions include participation in
professional, scholarly, and disciplinary associations and organizations. Such
64
activities include holding a leadership position in organizations, serving on
accreditation bodies and national examining boards, organizing meetings and
workshops for professional organizations, and serving on governing boards
and task forces.
3. Private and community contributions that occur outside of one’s professional
and institutional life. This could include participation in civic, political, or
religious organizations, holding public office, and providing free health care
services to citizens.
The determination of which of these criteria will be used by the institution to measure the
performance of faculty should be dependent upon the mission and goals of the institution
and its various subunits including its colleges, departments, and units (Dilts, Haber, &
Bialik, 1994). When an institution is able to clearly convey to its faculty which of these
aspects of their work it considers important, and thus will be evaluated by the institution,
it increases the credibility and usefulness of appraisal as an effective management and
motivational tool.
When there is not clear communication and correlation of institutional goals with
individual faculty goals, this causes faculty dissatisfaction and frustration with the
appraisal process which then diminishes its credibility and usefulness. If, for example,
the mission statement of a college states that it is a teaching institution, but then there are
minimal efforts made to evaluate teaching, the credibility of the mission statement is lost.
If the school in reality primarily rewards only research, then only research will be
produced (Dilts et al., 1994).
65
Goals of Faculty Appraisal
To conclude this section on faculty performance appraisal, five goals of faculty
appraisal (Braskamp & Ory, 1994) will be reviewed. These goals will be compared to
goals of performance appraisal as defined elsewhere in performance appraisal literature
(for businesses, non-profits, and administrative staff at colleges and universities), and
significant similarities or differences will be noted:
1. Address both individual and institutional goals
An effective institution simultaneously encourages the growth of its individual
faculty and fulfills its own institutional goals. For faculty, professional
growth necessitates learning and developing from one’s own experiences
which suggests the use of evaluation and feedback. This also includes having
autonomy, freedom, and an organizational culture where experimentation is
allowed along with some dead ends and failure. Likewise, institutions exist
for a purpose and they must also be held responsible and accountable to their
stakeholders for achieving their collective goals. A paradox exists between
giving faculty their independence and monitoring their work, and while this
paradox may never be resolved, it must be acknowledged and confronted. Job
satisfaction and commitment come when employees know what is important
to the organization and what its priorities are. Appraisal system goals should
be clear and simple, and should be linked to the evaluation of performance,
the establishing of objectives, and the identification of faculty development
66
needs which take into account the institutions’ goals (Smith, 1996). Appraisal
is one means of communicating these goals to the faculty.
2. Reflect the complexity of faculty work
Because faculty work is complex, the appraisal of the work should match the
complexity of the work. The number of publications or a single score on a
rating form do not sufficiently measure the contributions of faculty. A broad
collection of appraisal methods is needed to best measure the work of faculty.
3. Foster faculty members’ uniqueness and promote career development
Assessment of faculty work should reflect the individuality of the faculty, who
are diverse in their goals, talents, and achievements, but not necessarily their
individualism. The practice of appraisal should be carried out for the
documentation for promotion, tenure, and salary increases, as well as for a
means of improvement for the faculty member. Clement and Stevens (1989)
suggest that the appraisal process should allow faculty members to take
advantage of their individual strengths in meeting the goals of their respective
departments.
4. Clearly communicate institutional goals and expectations
Feedback from appraisal can be a powerful means of socialization in which
faculty can learn of the goals and expectations of the institution. Feedback
during the appraisal process can be an effective way to promote and reward
loyalty to an institution and to foster a sense of belonging, which some faculty
particularly value.
67
5. Promote collegiality
Braskamp and Ory (1994) suggest that while faculty have long been involved
in assessing the research of their colleagues, they have done little in the area
of assessing teaching effectiveness and professional service. This is due to the
public nature of research and the value that is placed on the different
categories of work. While faculty autonomy is part of the culture, faculty can
reclaim their accountability to their colleagues and thus reclaim the collegial
tradition. Overall, if a college or university desires to support the career
development of its faculty while at the same time meeting the broad goals of
the institution, it must evaluate the work of its faculty from both an individual
and an institutional perspective.
It is interesting to compare the goals of performance appraisal, reviewed earlier in
this study that are applicable for most types of organizations, with those goals listed
above that are specific for faculty appraisal. There is much similarity of goals including
providing feedback to employees, encouraging performance improvement, determining
developmental goals for employees, and providing information for personnel decisions
such as pay increases and promotions. An interesting difference is that for faculty
appraisal, there is significantly more emphasis placed on the input of the faculty, their
career aspirations, and their individual developmental needs than was mentioned for most
types of organizations. This can probably be attributed to the historically collegial nature
of colleges and universities that has been characterized by faculty autonomy and
independence.
68
Organizational Governance and Performance Appraisal in Higher Education
Distinctive Characteristics
Organizations differ in many ways such as having different types of clients, using
different technologies, having employees with different skill-sets, developing different
structures and coordinating styles, and relating differently to their external environments
(Baldridge, Curtis, Ecker, & Riley, 1977). While there are common elements in the
various types of organizations including colleges and universities, hospitals, businesses,
government firms, and prisons, no two organizations are the same. When considering the
relevance of performance appraisal to colleges and universities, it is important to
understand these institutions’ distinct characteristics and how they may influence the
acceptance and use of performance appraisal.
Baldridge et al. (1977) suggest five distinctive characteristics of colleges and
universities. The first is goal ambiguity. Most organizations have established goals, and
they set strategies and processes to help them accomplish their goals. For example,
businesses must make a profit, government firms follow the policies and guidelines set by
the laws that created them, hospitals aim to heal sick people, and prisons try to
rehabilitate. In contrast, colleges and universities have less clear goals and the list of
goals might include teaching, research, community service, providing solutions to social
problems, or supporting the arts. Cohen and March (1974) suggest that efforts to
establish goals by institutions of higher education “produce goals that are either
meaningless or dubious” (p. 195). Weber (2005) claimed that “while every one of the
69
more than 3,000 colleges and universities in the United States has a mission statement
that sets out its goals and objectives, those are invariably, and appropriately, vague and
almost impossible to measure in objective fashion” (p. 41). Academic goals can be not
only unclear but also highly contested (Baldridge et al.). As long as the goals are left
unclear and ambiguous, they are easily agreed upon, but when they are made more
concrete and actually implemented, conflict begins.
A second distinctive characteristic is that colleges and universities have clients
who demand a voice in the decision-making process, similar to schools, hospitals, and
welfare agencies. This can be a very significant and frequent factor in higher education
where the clients are very capable of speaking for themselves.
A third distinctive characteristic is having problematic technology due to serving
clients with dissimilar, complex needs. Compared to manufacturing organizations whose
work can more easily be segmented and made routine, in higher education it is more
difficult to construct a simple technology that deals primarily with people and that relies
heavily on professional expertise. If academic institutions are not always clear on what
they are trying to accomplish, they also may not know how to do it well.
Baldridge et al. (1977) describe a fourth distinctive characteristic of colleges and
universities as professionalism. Instead of an organization dividing a complicated task
into smaller sets of routine procedures or tasks performed by unskilled and skilled
employees, professional work requires that a broad range of tasks be completed by a
single employee. These professionals typically demand autonomy in their work, wanting
to be free from close supervision, and they tend to have divided loyalties between their
70
own organization and their peers at the national level. There can also be tensions
between professional staff and organization managers concerning ownership of
responsibilities and decision-making authority. Also, professionals can demand peer
evaluation of their work because they feel that only their colleagues are qualified to
competently judge their performance.
The final distinctive characteristic that can separate colleges and universities from
other organizations is environmental vulnerability (Baldridge et al., 1977). Although
most organizations interact with their environments to some degree, some have more
freedom than others in their actions. If the range of freedom is from high (in a typical
business firm in a free market economy), to low (in public school districts that are
constantly being watched by the communities they serve), colleges and universities are
somewhere in the middle of the range. In recent years, however, colleges and
universities have been subject to much more external review by the public, state
legislatures, and the Federal government resulting in movement to less freedom. When
there is increased external pressure from outside interest groups, the operating autonomy
of the academic institutions is significantly decreased. Therefore, as their vulnerability
grows, their governance structure changes extensively.
When summarizing the above five distinctive characteristics of colleges and
universities and relating them to a specific organizational type, Baldridge et al. (1977)
suggest that colleges and universities do not fit the standard category of “bureaucracy”.
Although bureaucracy does accurately describe certain parts of colleges and universities
including the business operations, plant management, capital spending, and various
71
auxiliary services, it does not adequately describe the heart of the institution which
includes academic policy making, teaching, and research. Cohen and March (1974)
suggest using the term “organized anarchy” to describe academic institutions which
differs significantly from a bureaucracy or a collegium. The organized anarchy has
generous resources that allow employees to go in various directions without coordination
from a central authority. Leaders tend to be weak and there are many decisions made by
individuals. Leaders tend to act more as catalysts and facilitators than decision-makers,
and negotiators rather than commanders. The image of organized anarchy helps capture
the distinctive characteristics of colleges and institutions including unclear goals,
problematic technology, and environmental vulnerability.
These distinctive characteristics of colleges and universities can have a significant
influence on the use of performance appraisal. Performance appraisal depends greatly on
the use of clearly stated goals, both for the individual and for the institution. If the goals
are ambiguous, it is very difficult to define meaningful measurements for accomplishing
them. If the goals are clear but highly contested, then it is more difficult to reach
consensus on what goals will be used in the appraisal. The characteristics of
professionalism and voice in the decision-making process suggest that the process of
developing goals must be a joint effort in which both the person being appraised and the
appraiser have input in the development of the goals. This will encourage ownership of
the process by the person being appraised. The characteristic of environmental
vulnerability, where colleges and universities are experiencing increasing accountability
demands from outside interest groups, suggests that organizational freedom is decreasing
72
and thus there will be a growing expectation of accountability. Performance appraisal is
one tool used to help meet that demand.
Organizational Governance
The five distinctive characteristics mentioned above influence the type of
organizational structure used by academic institutions. Three of the most common
academic governance models are the bureaucracy, the collegiums, and the political
system (Baldridge et al., 1977). The question can be asked concerning the various types
of organizational governance and the appropriateness of performance appraisal to each
type. Can performance appraisal, which has historically been an effective management
tool particularly within the bureaucratic organization, also be an effective tool within the
collegial system or the political system? It will be useful to describe the primary
characteristics of these three models and then address the question of how effective
performance appraisal can be in these environments.
Baldridge et al. (1977, p. 133) describe some of the more prominent
characteristics of a bureaucracy that are involved in university administration:
1. The university is under state charter like most bureaucracies.
2. The university has a formal hierarchy with bylaws that define the relationships
between offices.
3. There are recognized channels of communication that must be considered.
4. Bureaucratic authority relationships exist.
5. Formal policies and procedures govern much of the institution’s work.
73
6. Bureaucratic procedures are in place concerning the processing of people
including record keeping, registration, graduation requirements and other
routine daily activities.
7. Administrative managers use bureaucratic decision-making procedures for
making routine decisions.
Some of the weaknesses of the bureaucratic model as they apply to academic institutions
include: (a) not describing well the informal types of power and influence which can
appeal to emotion and sentiment, (b) not describing well the dynamic processes that
characterize the institution in action, (c) not explaining how organizational structure can
change over time, and (d) not addressing well the process by which policy is initially
established.
The collegium model of governance can be summarized using three themes:
“decision-making by consensus, the professional authority of faculty members, and the
call for more humane education” (Baldridge et al., 1977, p. 135). Decision-making
should not be like the hierarchical process of a bureaucracy but rather using full
participation of the academic community and, in particular, the faculty. The faculty
administers its own affairs and the bureaucratic administrators have little influence. The
idea of professionalism emphasizes the professional’s ability to make decisions and the
need for freedom from institutional rules. The idea of more humane education refers to
changing what is perceived currently as an impersonal, bureaucratized educational
system to an “academic community” that would offer personal attention, humane
education, and relevant confrontation with life (Baldridge et al.).
74
The political system model of university governance focuses on organizations as
miniature political systems and on policy-forming processes, because it is the major
policies that commit an institution to specific goals and that define the strategies for
accomplishing those goals (Baldridge et al., 1977). Policy decisions are critical because
they commit an institution to key paths of action.
When considering performance appraisal as a management tool in each of the
governance structures mentioned above, there is potential cause for conflict particularly
in the collegial model. Performance appraisal is effective in an environment where both
organizational and position goals are clearly stated and there is a hierarchal
organizational structure with clearly defined positions and responsibilities. This is most
closely associated with the bureaucratic structure. In the collegial structure, goals are
more ambiguous and results are more difficult to measure, thus making accountability
more difficult. The professional staff requires autonomy in their work and freedom from
close supervision, again making the concept of performance appraisal a more difficult fit.
In addition, there is strong value placed on consensus decision-making and evaluation,
and less acceptance of decisions made by individuals through their positions of authority
and power. Thus conflict is likely to erupt in the collegial culture when performance
appraisal and accountability are introduced.
Downey (1995), in his article “The University as Trinity: Balancing Corporation,
Collegium, and Community”, describes the university as consisting of three components
– a corporation, a collegium, and a community – which has similarity to the three
governance models mentioned above of bureaucracy, collegium and political system. He
75
argues that each of the three components has elements which are critical to the idea of the
university, but that each component also has elements that are not necessarily in harmony
with each other. The value of the corporation component is that it provides an orderly
environment where the business of the academic institution can be carried out. The
corporation receives funding through various entities including the state, students, and
donors without which the scholarly pursuits of the institution could not be carried out. If
the institution is not well structured, financed, and managed, this will have a negative
impact on its academic pursuits.
The second part of the trinity is the collegium which Downey (1995) suggests is
essential to, but not the essence of, the academy. While the corporation works within a
hierarchical authority, the collegium uses the principle of hieratic, or priestly, authority in
which the faculty are given the highest power in matters pertaining to academic policy
and principle. Within the collegium, democracy is practiced where faculty members may
speak their minds in freedom such as raising objections and challenging any decisions
made. Academic freedom resides in the collegium where individual faculty members are
given the greatest reasonable amount of autonomy in the performance of their academic
duties. The third component described by Downey is the community. Of all social
institutions, he suggests that the university has the most attributes of a community
including physical infrastructure of land, buildings, roads, sewers, and cultural and
athletic facilities. It also includes personal, professional, social, recreational, and
educational services, as well as a broad diversity of people with varying interests,
76
competence, and ethnicities. Downey notes that neither the corporation nor the
collegiums will thrive without such a community.
There has been a strong push in recent years towards the corporate emphasis and
away from the collegium due to the demand for increased accountability from the
constituents of academic institutions. If the trend continues in this direction, it would
appear that the need for performance appraisal will only increase as one method for
achieving stronger accountability.
Historically, a basic principle of higher education institutions has been that higher
education is not a business, and thus concepts associated with a business-like corporation,
such as hierarchical management of people, property, and profit are not appropriate for
their organizations (Greenberg, 2004). Thus any mention on campus by the
administration of a program losing money or that the faculty could be better managed in
their responsibilities brings forth disparaging comments that the administration has a
corporate mentality and is treating the institution as a business. This again raises the
question concerning the appropriateness of using performance appraisal for the faculty,
and certainly provides a forum for heated discussion and argument between faculty and
administrators. Greenberg suggests there are clear reasons why higher education should
be considered big business: (a) the ratings game and annual rankings between higher
education institutions, (b) the close relationships between research universities and large
businesses, (c) the semi-professional athletic programs, (d) multi-million dollar facilities,
(e) faculty labor unions and strikes, (f) large salaries of college and university top
administrators, and (g) the competition among schools to recruit students. He concludes
77
by suggesting that if higher education institutions are going to lead the way forward,
rather than being directed by outside constituents, they must think about their people,
property, and productivity in business terms.
Lohmann (2004) describes the significant changes that are impacting the
university environment including the emerging knowledge society, change in
demographics of higher education, technology and communication transformation, and
the rise of for-profit and distance learning institutions. She suggests that these represent
either opportunities or threats to the university depending on how it responds to them, but
that to survive, the university must reinvent itself. At one extreme, the university could
return to its faculty roots, which Lohmann says is not really an option regardless of what
the faculty say. The other extreme is to come under the rule of the outside world and be
run completely as a business. Lohmann proposes a solution midway between these two
extremes where “the university is neither the servant of the faculty nor the handmaid of
the outside world. Instead, the university must remain precariously poised between these
two powerful forces” (p. 26). It must offer free spaces where the research can flourish
while also be willing to change with the times and respond to social and technological
change. She concludes that if the university takes on the form of either of the extremes, it
becomes dysfunctional or dead.
It is clear that the concept of performance appraisal fits more easily into a
bureaucratic type of governance model than it does into the collegial model due to the
reasons mentioned above. As colleges and universities continue to experience increased
demand for accountability, and perhaps corresponding changes in their governance
78
structures, it will be important to determine how and where accountability and appraisal
best fit within this evolving structure.
Organizational Culture and Performance Appraisal
Understanding the organizational culture of colleges and universities can help
clarify how campuses are being managed because culture seems to have a causal impact
on managerial style and decision practices (Masland, 2000). The blend and
predominance of various types of cultures at a particular institution can impact
management practices which can then affect whether or not performance appraisal is
used, the purposes for which it is used, and its success at the institution.
The literature is full of many varying definitions of organizational culture. Kuh
and Whitt (2000) suggest that a precise definition of culture is elusive because it is a
multifaceted collection of context-bound changing properties. They state that the “core
of culture is comprised of assumptions and beliefs shared – to some degree – by members
of the institution that guide decision making and shape major events and activities” (p.
169). Dill (2000) defines organizational culture as “the shared beliefs, ideologies, or
dogma of a group which impel individuals to action and give their actions meaning” (p.
264).
Bergquist and Pawlak (2008) suggest that there are six discrete cultures in
American colleges and universities, and each have their own story, viewpoints, and
values. The six cultures are the collegial culture, the managerial culture, the
developmental culture, the advocacy (negotiating) culture, the virtual culture, and the
79
tangible culture. It is important to understand the basis of each of the six cultures so that
their potential influence on performance appraisal can be better understood.
Collegial Culture
The collegial culture is characterized by the fact that faculty members have worked
primarily in a collegial culture since American higher education was established in the
colonial college (Bergquist & Pawlak, 2008). This culture in American colleges and
universities is instilled with both the British and German forms of higher education.
Interdependence and collaboration are more common in the British form, in contrast to
faculty autonomy which is more widespread among institutions similar to German
universities.
The collegial culture promotes the variety of perspective and the relative
independence of work (Bergquist & Pawlak, 2008). It is a “loose coupled” culture
(Birnbaum, 1988) whose constituents are not capable of defining the standards by which
their colleagues are to be judged. Relationships tend to be relaxed, non-hierarchical, and
for the duration, and changes are made in this culture through political negotiation.
People who are successful in this culture usually participate in the faculty governance
processes of their institutions or they hold a position of high prestige based on their
scholarly work or extended time on the faculty. Leadership appears from committee and
other group activities, or from independent academic activities.
80
Managerial Culture
In the managerial culture, educational goals can be clearly stated and the
standards for judging their success can be identified and utilized (Bergquist & Pawlak,
2008). Faculty members are successful as leaders if they are competent in managing
fiscal and personnel affairs, often serving in the role of chair of the department. Faculty
in this culture often perceive that the best way to make an impact in their institutions is
by moving into an administrative position. These faculty members often do not
participate in faculty governance practices and they usually consider these processes to be
unproductive and a waste of time. As they prepare for roles as administrators in the
future, faculty members oriented towards the managerial culture reason from the
viewpoint of cost control, achievability, and explicit outcomes.
Bergquist and Pawlak (2008) suggest that faculty members in the managerial
culture frequently use teaching materials that have been written by other people. The
design of instructional materials is often distinct from the act of teaching. These two skill
sets are commonly seen by the managerial faculty member as separate. In their wide-
ranging instructional role, managerial faculty members are disposed to commit
significant time and consideration to identifying educational goals or outcomes, ordering
self-sufficient instructional units, and choosing and implementing instructional systems
that use resources unrelated to them. The faculty member’s teaching responsibility may
even be considered as non-essential, and the faculty member may act rather as an
instructional systems manager or facilitator. The school’s mission is defined as the
81
instillation of specific knowledge, skills, and attitudes in its students so that they might
become flourishing and dependable citizens.
Whereas the collegial culture is a mixture of the British and German university
models, the managerial culture originated in several postsecondary institutions in the
United States including the Catholic college and university and the community college
(Bergquist & Pawlak, 2008). Both the Catholic college and the community college grew
out of the elementary and secondary school systems of their communities where there
were clear lines of authority as well as administrators who had control over the planning
and managerial functions of the institution. These colleges offered courses in which clear
curricular guidelines could be defined, and where the desired competencies of the
students could be measured. As a result, they had a focus on vocational preparation.
Developmental Culture
There are four key aspects of the developmental culture (Bergquist & Pawlak,
2008). First, it defines itself primarily in the formation of programs and events that
further the personal and professional development of all members of the higher education
institution. Secondly, it values personal openness and service to other people, methodical
institutional research, and curricular development. Thirdly, it assumes that all men and
women have the innate desire to achieve their individual personal maturation, while also
helping others in the institution become more mature. Finally, it defines the institution’s
mission as helping develop the cognitive, affective and behavioral maturation among all
the students, faculty, administrators, and staff.
82
Bergquist and Pawlak (2008) suggest that leaders in the developmental culture
reside outside any formal role or lines of authority in the higher education institution.
However, they do not attempt to change the institution through combined force, but
rather choose to promote shared awareness of the problems facing the institution and
shared recognition of alternative solutions to these problems. In this way, the supposition
of organizational rationality becomes a part of the developmentalist’s strategy for
successful institutional leadership. The developmentalists focus attention away from the
personal issues and power struggles that often distract faculty and administrators in the
other cultures.
Advocacy Culture
The advocacy culture came about due to the failure of the managerial culture to satisfy the personal and financial needs of faculty and staff (Bergquist & Pawlak, 2008).
When administrators had control of the development of institutional policy, the faculty
had to reestablish their influence and power through collective action. Collective
bargaining of faculty has focused not only on compensation and personnel issues, but
also on curricular and teaching-learning issues.
The advocacy culture primarily values the establishment of equitable and
egalitarian guidelines and procedures for the allocation of resources and benefits in the
higher education institution. It places value on confrontation and negotiation among
management and faculty or staff who have vested interests that are by nature in
opposition. It has assumptions about the crucial function of power and the recurrent need
83
for outside intervention in an academic institution, and it defines the institution’s mission
as either the objectionable dissemination of current social attitudes and organizational
makeup, or the creation of new and more liberating social attitudes and organizational
makeup.
Virtual Culture
The virtual culture differs from the previous four cultures in that it originated
primarily outside of and exists independently of the academy (Bergquist & Pawlak,
2008). The virtual culture in higher education connects directly with the virtual culture
globally. While a modern organization has a physical presence and an organizational
chart that describes its purpose and the roles of those people who work within it, the
boundaries and structures in a virtual organization shift with the variables that influence
it. The modern organization is practically a closed system while the virtual one is an
open system.
The virtual culture values the worldwide viewpoint of open, common educational
systems and it defines its mission as linking its educational resources to worldwide and
technological resources which in turn broadens the worldwide learning system. It is
characterized by such things as computer technology, the Internet, world-wide web, on-
line education, a knowledge economy (rather than an industrial economy), loose
organizational boundaries, and virtual epistemology (e.g. blogs and wikis). New
collaborations with other institutions allow colleges and universities to provide their
skills and expertise in degree-granting and postsecondary education with the facilities,
84
marketing and financial expertise, and technical and scientific equipment of other
institutions to produce service-learning initiatives and partnerships. These programs
bring together community agencies with colleges and universities to provide valuable
services to the surrounding community as well as give students excellent learning
opportunities.
Tangible Culture
The tangible culture is based on reflection and the search for a deeply rooted
identity, a supportive and appreciative community, and a grounding in religious or
spiritual values rather than secular ones (Bergquist & Pawlak, 2008). It prioritizes the
certainty of a value-based, face-to-face education in its own real estate, and it assumes the
capability of old approaches and technologies to infuse the institution’s standards. It
defines the mission of the organization as the valuing and incorporation of learning from
a local perspective. Education is not just about conveying factual information, which the
Internet can do well, but about learning to argue and reason which is best done among a
group of scholars (The Brains Business, 2005).
The origins of the tangible culture trace back to the early European universities
such as Oxford and Cambridge and then later to the early American colleges including
Harvard and Yale. The founding values and perspectives of academic institutions are
thus based not in modern societies but in premodern ones. The tangible culture is the
original culture of these institutions, and Bergquist and Pawlak (2008) suggest that it
85
exists in our present culture at a much more extensive level than do any of the five
academic cultures previously mentioned.
Higher education institutions with a significant tangible culture typically have
implied purposes and boundaries. Employees of these institutions simply do what their
predecessors have done. One would never have asked a professor what his intentions
were or should be. If a professor was queried about his intentions, he would merely ask
the person to come into his classroom or laboratory. If the inquirer probed deeper, the
professor would likely assert the need for academic freedom and decline to respond,
stating the inappropriateness of the questions pertaining to purposes or outcomes.
Relevance of Culture to Performance Appraisal
Today, colleges and universities are confronted with very difficult economic
limitations, and because of this restricted monetary climate, greater degrees of
accountability and measurement of educational results are expected (Greenberg, 2004).
These institutions are looking for ways to deal with their financial, environmental, and
managerial challenges. At the same time, there are fewer public funds available for
higher education due to diminishing tax dollars and to many charitable organizations that
are no longer as openhanded as they once were. It is also difficult to anticipate changes
in government policies, student career interests, student educational needs, or competition
from other educational institutions. Colleges and universities must be able to change in
response to these uncertainties, and this change will be complicated and prolonged if it
takes place in a bureaucratic educational setting (Bergquist & Pawlak, 2008). Inclusive
86
processes are needed in this change process. However, by allowing many constituencies
and stakeholders to be involved, this minimizes the flexibility and reaction time to the
outside environment.
Because of these challenges, there has been a significant change in the kind of
organizational cultures that are present in twenty-first century higher education compared
to the previous century (Bergquist & Pawlak, 2008). The collegial culture is still the
prevalent culture although it is not as powerful as it used to be. Both the managerial and
advocacy cultures have become stronger while the developmental culture has remained
insignificant.
Significant cultural change comes slowly and resistance to change is even more
prevalent in higher education than other parts of society (Bergquist & Pawlak, 2008;
Greenberg, 2004). Bergquist and Pawlak suggest three reasons for this resistance to
change. One reason is that faculty produce and teach new knowledge, and so colleges
and universities exist to preserve some stability and to pass on lessons previously learned.
This stability opposes change. Second, faculty have a degree of self-importance in their
work because they often self-regulate professionally, and are therefore the authorities and
know what is right. This can cause a lack of support for professional development and
opposition to accountability and performance appraisal among faculty. Third, there is
anxiety caused by such factors as difficult economic times, requests for greater
accountability, less availability of public funds, an increasingly faster rate of new
knowledge being generated or encountered, and more scrutiny of faculty work by peers
and administrators in the classroom and laboratory. Where there are high levels of
87
anxiety in institutions, cultures become strong, and where cultures become strong
coupled with high anxiety, the resistance to change increases. For these reasons, the
successful use of performance appraisal in colleges and universities may need to take on
different definitions, use different processes and methods, and be implemented in
different ways in the future, depending on whether it is faculty, administrative leaders, or
staff being evaluated.
Religiously Affiliated Colleges and Universities
According to the U.S. Department of Education, there are 2,578 private colleges
and universities in the United States, of which 892 classify themselves as religiously
affiliated (Snyder, Dillow, & Hoffman, 2008). The religiously affiliated classification
includes primarily Christian institutions (95%) as well as other faiths such as the Jewish
faith and the Mormon faith. The term “religiously affiliated” refers to key components of
the institutions, including their articles of incorporation, by-laws, curricula, personnel,
and a religious purpose and presence (Andringa, 2009). A large group of these
institutions range from having full denominational ownership and control at one end of
the spectrum to a remote, inactive historical affiliation on the other end. Other
institutions are clearly faith driven but have no connection to a denomination.
Religiously affiliated institutions are located in 45 states, have student bodies ranging
from 100 to 30,000 students, have endowments ranging from $0 to more than $500
million, and offer varying degrees from associate and baccalaureate degrees only to
doctoral degrees (Andringa).
88
Challenges Facing Religiously Affiliated Institutions
According to a study done by Andringa (2009) in 2005, there is cause for alarm
for the future viability of most of these institutions. Aside from approximately 100 of the
institutions that have solid financial foundations which should allow them to be
successful for decades to come, the remaining 800 religiously affiliated colleges and
universities have a fragile foundation. Andringa identifies seven primary causes of this
fragility:
1. Location – the majority of these schools are located in small, rural towns.
This is contrary to the urban settings with institutional enrollments of at least
5,000 which appeal to many current students. These students want 24/7
campus life and activities, and plentiful job opportunities.
2. Liberal Arts – most of the religiously affiliated colleges and universities are
based on a liberal arts education, which is in contrast to other institutions that
are focusing more on career-oriented programs. The commitment to liberal
arts has become a risk for many of these institutions as they attempt to appeal
to today’s career-minded students.
3. Challenge of Church Relations – religiously affiliated institutions currently
receive less than 20 percent of their student bodies from their related
denominations. This is a lose-lose situation because if the denominational
churches do not advocate for their denominational colleges, no one else can be
expected to do so. If these institutions move away from their affiliated
89
denominations, they could lose the support of the churches and donors in their
denominations that do support them.
4. Church–Campus Governance Conflicts – for many of these institutions there
is conflict between institutional boards that want to be responsive to needed
changes on their campuses, and the faculty and some administrators who may
resist the needed changes. The President can be caught in a conflict between
these two forces and unable to make necessary changes.
5. Institutional Independence and Political Decision Making – the independence
of these institutions has been eroded in recent years due to the significant
amount of financial aid their students receive from the Federal, and sometimes
state, governments. Should politicians or the courts ever decide that there are
Constitutional issues with this form of aid given to religiously affiliated
institutions, any prohibitions would seriously undermine the core values of
these institutions.
6. Cost of Residence Life – the small residential college is seen by some as an
old, high cost model that no longer applies to the existing market. Students
shop more for values in higher education, for example taking one class at a
local, cheaper community college while enrolled in a four-year college for its
campus life, and then also taking an on-line class from yet another college.
7. Faith and Accountability – the increased emphasis by the Federal government
for institutions of higher education to demonstrate and measure their learning
90
outcomes can challenge the religious institutions as they fulfill the nuances
and intricacies of their faith-based missions.
Andringa (2009) suggests that most of these religiously affiliated colleges and
universities can survive in the future, but they will need to be led with vision and bold
leadership. They will also need to hire faculty who see their faith as central to the
development of the whole person rather than being just a private matter, and they will
need to be willing to take more risks. Performance appraisal can assist in these efforts by
holding employees accountable for identifying and taking necessary risks which could
help the institutions in their push for survival in the future.
Distinctives of Christian Colleges and Universities
The focus of this study is the 108 institutions in the United States that are
members of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU). These
institutions are distinctly Christian and this section begins with an overview of the key
distinctives of Christian colleges and universities. It is followed by a description of some
additional characteristics of these institutions and then finally by a brief review of the
origins of the CCCU including its basic tenets and principles for membership. This
section will help define and give understanding to the specific institutions that will be
researched in this study and provide insight into their general nature and makeup.
Christian colleges and universities have a unique opportunity to provide American
society with a distinctive approach to higher education – an approach that is based upon
and shaped by the Christian faith (DeJong, 1992). The success of these institutions in
91
offering a unique educational model is significantly impacted by their ability to adopt and
maintain their unique distinctives. DeJong divides the distinctives into two types – those
relating to identity and those relating to the mission of the institution. Institutional
identity is influenced by six components:
1. Private-Independent - This refers to the structure of the governing board of the
institution. A private or independent institution is largely independent of
government and political control and thus has more freedom in setting its
distinctive educational identity.
2. Denominational Affiliation - Many Christian colleges and universities are
affiliated with a church denomination which identifies the religious tradition
that the institution is aligned with. This affiliation allows prospective students
and the general public to draw conclusions about the nature of the institution
and its theological viewpoints.
3. Residential Environment - Most of these institutions are residential in nature,
with many of their students living on campus. This gives the institutions an
opportunity to provide their students with a supportive campus community
that shows concern for the students’ normative development as a person, a
learner, a worshiper, and a community member.
4. Behavioral Standards - Most church-related institutions have some type of
behavioral standards that are derived from their religious traditions. These
standards convey a sense of institutional identity and expectations for campus
life.
92
5. Integration of Faith and Learning - Faculty and students are encouraged to
integrate learning with their religious ideologies so that they are linked
together rather than being compartmentalized as separate dimensions of their
lives.
6. Emphasis on Teaching - The emphasis on the integration of faith and learning
is closely related to an emphasis on teaching. While most of these institutions
are involved in some research, their primary focus is on preparing students for
leadership in all walks of life.
These six components of an institution’s identity allow the institution to shape and
communicate its unique identity and to form its institutional ethos.
The second type of distinctive that DeJong (1992) describes as impacting the
unique organizational model of Christian colleges and universities is its institutional
mission. The mission of the Christian institution separates it from other institutions by
shaping its organizational life and guiding its day-to-day activities. DeJong describes
four components that separate the mission of Christian institutions from other types of
institutions.
1. Meaning and Value - The mission of a Christian institution is anchored in an
expression of its Christian faith and grounded in a Christian view of reality.
The entire educational experience is grounded in the Christian faith of the
institution.
2. Intellectual Growth - While the overall mission of the institution is to foster
intellectual growth, this is accomplished through a Christian point of view.
93
Academic excellence includes the cultivation of a Christian point of view
relating to the subject matter, the learning process, and everyday living.
3. Social, Physical, and Spiritual Development - The institutional mission
includes not just intellectual growth but also the social, physical, and spiritual
development of the student.
4. Responsible Citizenship - Part of the emphasis of integrating faith and
learning includes teaching ethical responsibility in the academic disciplines as
well as in the ethical issues of society. Community service is also a
component of citizenship and is based on the Christian precept of loving one’s
neighbors. Another component of being a responsible citizen is to respect the
physical environment and to avoid exploiting the Earth’s resources and
polluting the environment.
Overall, institutional identity and mission establish linkages with the past and present
while providing vision and direction for the future. The contribution of Christian
colleges and universities to higher education lies in their ability to develop unique
identities and missions through these distinctives (DeJong, 1992).
Muntz and Crabtree (2006) have provided three distinctives of Christian colleges
and universities which in many ways are similar to those suggested by DeJong. The first
one is a shared commitment to integrating faith, learning, and living, with an intentional
emphasis on development of the whole person. Students are challenged intellectually and
spiritually, with an emphasis to grow both academically and in their faith. A second
distinctive is character development. The institutions are deliberate in helping their
94
students develop character traits such as integrity, truthfulness, honor, dependability, and
reliability. This is implemented in several ways including programs directed by Student
Affairs in the dormitories, service projects, weekly chapel services, and intramural sports.
The final distinctive, and possibly the most significant one, is that all full-time faculty,
administrators, and staff must have a personal affiliation or relationship with Jesus Christ.
While there will always be differences of opinion between and within the faculty,
administrators, and staff at Christian colleges and universities on a variety of academic,
political, social, and scientific subjects, it is the faith commitment that offers a common
ground.
Additional Characteristics of Christian Colleges and Universities
Christian colleges and universities are quite diverse and have varied historical and
theological backgrounds (Muntz & Crabtree, 2006). Some of these institutions are
nondenominational and interdenominational meaning that they are not associated with
any particular church group. Examples include Gordon College (MA), Bryan College
(TN), and Westmont College (CA). Other institutions are affiliated with a particular
denomination such as Presbyterian or Baptist, but they are open to students from other
denominations and sometimes students from other faiths who want to study in a Christian
environment.
The location of these institutions varies widely across the United States. Some
are found in urban settings such as Azusa Pacific University in the Los Angeles area,
Dallas Baptist University (TX), and Seattle Pacific University (WA). There are many
95
found in small cities and suburbs including Calvin College in Grand Rapids, MI,
Wheaton College in the suburbs of Chicago, IL, and Palm Beach Atlantic University in
West Palm Beach, FL. There are also a number of these institutions found in small
communities such as Northwest Nazarene University near Boise, ID and Alaska Bible
College in Glenallen, AK.
Concerning the issue of academic quality, Christian institutions in general have
developed their reputations as credible, competitive options in higher education.
Although in the past they were relegated to the fringes of academic quality, they now
consistently appear in the rankings of smaller institutions (Muntz & Crabtree, 2006).
They are found in such publications as Princeton Review’s The Best 368 Colleges,
Kaplan’s Unofficial, Unbiased Guide to the 331 Most Interesting Colleges, and The
National Review College Guide: America’s Top Liberal Arts Schools. Christian colleges
and universities attract students from a wide variety of backgrounds – race, ethnicity,
socioeconomic status, etc. – and from a variety of faith traditions (Muntz & Crabtree).
The financial practices at these institutions are similar to those at their secular private
counterparts concerning financial aid. While the Christian schools tend to have relatively
small endowments, their costs also tend to be less than at other institutions. More than
100 of these institutions are members of the CCCU and a brief history of this
organization will be provided next.
History of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities
The Council for Christian Colleges and Universities currently serves as the
principal professional association for Christian higher education in the United States
96
(Patterson, 2005). Its predecessor organization, the Christian College Consortium, was
organized in 1971 to provide greater collaboration among Christian institutions and to
help address the financial, enrollment, and identity issues that many of them were facing
in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The Christian College Coalition was formed in 1976
as a spinoff from the Christian College Consortium and included the 14 institutions that
were members of the Christian College Consortium. The Christian College Coalition
was to have an expanded role in public advocacy while maintaining the commitment to
the integration of faith and learning. It was also to have an emphasis on the freedom of
Christian institutions to function educationally and religiously (Patterson). By 1988 it
had grown to 77 members and included institutions from many Christian denominations
including Wesleyan, Free Methodist, Church of the Nazarene, American Baptist,
Southern Baptist, Presbyterian, Christian Reformed, Mennonite, Church of God, and the
United Brethren in Christ. The criteria for membership in the Christian College Coalition
included the following: (a) “accreditation as a four-year liberal arts college; (b)
institutional commitment to Christ; (c) a policy of hiring well-qualified faculty and
administrators who were committed Christians; (d) commitment to the integration of
faith, learning, and living; and (e) commitment to excellence” (Patterson, pp. 46-47).
In 1995 the Christian College Coalition changed its name to the name it uses
today – the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. It has grown to over 100
institutions and has developed as a multi-faceted organization that represents Christian
institutions of various sizes, organizational structures, lifestyles, denominational
connections, and doctrinal positions.
97
Governance, Freedom, and Accountability in Christian Institutions
Christian colleges and universities are confronted with the same issues that all
colleges and universities are confronted with including difficult economic limitations,
greater degrees of accountability, and measurement of educational results (Greenberg,
2004). They are looking for ways to deal with financial, environmental, and managerial
challenges while dealing with changes in student career interests and educational needs as
well as competition from other educational institutions.
These Christian institutions may also face another challenge associated with their
partnership with an ecclesiastical or a faith tradition. This challenge is the tension
between freedom and accountability (Forest & Kinser, 2002). On the one hand, faculty
and students are encouraged to pursue truth with no hindrance of a priori assumptions.
Ideas, theories, artifacts, and experiences are to be explored and discovered without
restraint. On the other hand, the faith institutions argue that learning and the pursuit of
knowledge are shaped by underlying beliefs and values, including those held by their
faith tradition. Some scholars have argued that the purposes of Christian institutions are
necessarily narrow and restrictive. This places doctrinal limits on scholarly inquiry
which then lead to objectionable compromises of the principles of academic freedom
(Sandin, 1992). However, in its pure form, the Christian college and university is not
dogmatic but rather is open to all truth. Forest and Kinser (p. 155) suggest that the
students and faculty of the Christian institutions proceed through the educational process
with their worldviews in place and actively engage in the learning process through those
98
worldviews. This is not a form of dogmatism but rather clearly acknowledging and
defining their own assumptions by virtue of the tenants of their faith.
Summary
The use of performance appraisal can be traced back to China in the third century
A.D., and from there it can be found in Ireland in the 1600s, in Scotland in the 1800s, and
in the U.S. in the early 1800s. The U.S. government required the use of performance
appraisal for all federal employees in 1978, and it became an established management
tool in many organizations in the U.S. by the early 1950s. The use of performance
appraisal in higher education is a more recent occurrence and began receiving significant
attention in the 1960s and 1970s when competition for scarce resources and a decrease in
the public’s trust in higher education resulted in colleges and universities being asked to
prove their effectiveness and efficiency (Alexander, 2000). The stakeholders of colleges
and universities began holding these institutions to higher levels of accountability, and
performance appraisal was adopted by the institutions as a tool to help strengthen their
accountability.
Much of the literature on performance appraisal suggests that performance
appraisal is an inevitable element of organizational life and, if done well, it serves a very
useful role in the overall success of the institution. However, the literature also indicates
there are significant challenges associated with performance appraisal. When it is not
done well, it can be a detriment to the success of the institution and its employees.
99
There is little written on the use of performance appraisal by colleges and
universities for their staff. It is important to know if performance appraisal is being used
and if so, the benefits and challenges that are incurred. The next chapter develops the
methodology that will be used to reduce the knowledge gap of how performance
appraisal is being used for staff in colleges and universities.
100
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This exploratory study was designed to determine if Christian colleges and
universities in the United States are using performance appraisal with their staff as a
significant management tool, and to understand the frequency of use, the benefits
obtained, and the challenges incurred in using performance appraisal.
Population and Setting
The population for the study was the 108 institutions that are U.S. members of the
Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU). The CCCU has three Canadian
members, but these institutions were not included since the focus of this study was U.S.
colleges and universities only. The CCCU also has 70 affiliate institutions that are not
included in this study because (a) they are located all over the world, (b) they do not have
to be accredited four-year institutions, (c) they have less stringent curriculum
requirements than the member schools, and (d) they do not have to hire only Christian
faculty. See Appendix C for a list of the institutions that are U.S. members of the CCCU
and Appendix D for the religious affiliations that these institutions represent.
According to statistics released by the Department of Education for the fall, 2005,
there were 4,253 degree-granting institutions in the U.S. of which 1,675 were public
institutions and 2,578 were private institutions (Snyder, Dillow, & Hoffman, 2008). Of
the private institutions, there were 892 religiously-affiliated institutions of which 108
U.S. institutions were members of the CCCU and thus surveyed for this study. The
101
criteria for membership in the CCCU include a strong commitment to Christ-centered
higher education, location within the U.S. or Canada, full regional accreditation (for U.S.
campuses), primarily four-year comprehensive colleges and universities, a broad
curricula rooted in the arts and sciences, Christians hired for all full-time faculty and
administrative positions, and sound finances (Council for Christian Colleges and
Universities).
The 2008-2009 Annual Report for the CCCU listed 319,289 students enrolled in
CCCU schools with a faculty of 20,711. These schools had 34,096 graduates in 2007 and
they have a total of 1.58 million alumni. They represent 26 church denominations and
have total operating budgets of $4 billion. There are 350 undergraduate majors and 140
graduate majors offered. Their enrollment ranges from 363 to 33,081 and the average
tuition in 2008-2009 was $18,577 (CCCU).
Research Design and Rationale for Design
The format chosen to conduct this study was a self-administered, on-line
questionnaire. The Human Resource directors at each CCCU institution were asked to
complete the questionnaire for their institution. They were contacted because the
performance appraisal process is normally administered by the Human Resource
department, and due to this oversight function, directors of this department should have a
broad understanding of the process of performance appraisal as well as an understanding
of the benefits and challenges of the performance appraisal process at their respective
102
institutions. The directors would also be positioned to hear feedback from employees
concerning these processes.
A list of the Human Resource directors and their contact information was
developed by the researcher from the Internet site of each institution that is a member of
the CCCU. This list became the population of participants that were asked to take part in
this survey. The researcher used a five-step plan, based on a model developed by
Dillman (2007) for achieving high response rates, to contact and follow-up with the
participants in the survey. The five steps of the plan were:
1. Approximately four weeks after this proposal was approved by the
dissertation committee, a pre-notice email was sent to each contact name to
describe the research project and to request the participation of the people on
the list. It identified the importance of the research project and how the
results of the research were to be used. The purpose of this letter was to let
people know ahead of time that they would be contacted. If there were any
undeliverable emails, attempts were made to correct the name and/or email
address and resend the pre-notice letter.
2. Approximately one week after the pre-notice email was sent, a link to the on-
line questionnaire with a cover letter was emailed to the contact list. It
requested the participation of the recipient of the email, provided additional
information concerning the purpose and benefits of the research, and provided
the estimated time needed to complete the questionnaire. It also indicated that
103
the responses to the questionnaire would be confidential and only released as
summaries in which no individual answers would be identified.
3. Approximately one week after the cover letter and link to the questionnaire
were emailed, a brief follow-up email with a link to the on-line questionnaire
was sent as a reminder to those who had not returned it.
4. Approximately one week after #3 above, another email was sent to those
participants who had not yet returned the questionnaire. It described the
importance of the research and the importance of receiving a reply from the
contact person.
5. A final reminder was given, either by phone call or email, one week after #4
above. It described the purpose of the research and asked the contact person
to complete and return the questionnaire. It also indicated that this contact
was the final one concerning this research.
An example of each of the above five letters can be found in Appendix E.
Instrument Development
A self-administered questionnaire, called the Survey of Use of Performance
Appraisal for Staff Positions, was developed by the author for this research and consisted
of 33 questions (see Appendix F). The writings of Grote (2002) and Thomas and Bretz
(1994) contributed to the content of the questions addressing the purposes of performance
appraisal. The writings of Seldin (1988) and Winston and Creamer (1997) provided
helpful insight into the questions concerning the benefits of performance appraisal, while
104
Murphy and Cleveland’s (1995) and Longenecker’s (2005) work contributed to the
questions concerning the challenges of performance appraisal. The questions were
closed-form design, meaning that the question permitted only a fixed number of
responses. This format works well for a quantitative study (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996).
The type and style of the questions were written using the eight criteria for assessing
survey questions and the principles for writing survey questions developed by Dillman
(2007) as a guide. Some of the questions related to whether or not the institutions used
performance appraisal, their frequency of use, and the type of system used (see Appendix
F for a copy of the questionnaire). These questions had “yes” or “no” responses
(questions 1, 16, 17, and 18) as well as other various multiple choice responses (questions
2, 3, 4, 5, 14, and 15). Other questions concerned how performance appraisal was used at
the institutions and used a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging along a continuum from
Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree (questions 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13). There
were also a series of questions concerning the challenges of performance appraisal
systems that used a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly
Agree (questions 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26), and three questions that addressed
the satisfaction of the institutions with their performance appraisal system (questions 27,
28, and 29).
Pilot Study
The questionnaire was tested by distributing it to a group of 29 graduate students
at the University of Central Florida who were enrolled in the class Analysis of Survey,
105
Record, and Other Qualitative Data during the summer term, 2008. Each student was
asked to review the questionnaire in terms of content clarity, presentation, and ease of
understanding. Written feedback was received including comments such as “very good
structure and questions were to the point,” “wordy,” “change the word ‘just right’ to
‘sufficient,’” “provide directions for this section of the questionnaire,” “change ‘does not
apply’ to ‘other,’” “use a different font for instructions for this section,” “answer #2 is too
long and wordy,” and “well-organized and easy to follow.” Changes were made to
several questions in the questionnaire based on this feedback. The questionnaire was also
reviewed by 10 doctorate students enrolled in the Prospectus Writing class at the
University of Central Florida, College of Education, during the fall term, 2008.
Additional feedback was received and used from the doctorate students and the class
professor to finalize the questionnaire. This included modifying the wording and
multiple-response options for several questions and adding three additional questions to
the questionnaire for a total of 33 questions.
Cronbach’s Alpha was used, based on the feedback of the pilot group, to measure
the internal consistency and reliability of the questionnaire. Although the reliability
coefficient for the entire questionnaire was low (.398), when the questions were grouped
for relatedness to each other, the reliability coefficients were significantly higher (see
Table 2). For the questions addressing how performance appraisal was used in each
institution (questions 6 – 13), Cronbach’s Alpha was .701. For the questions addressing
the appraisal process at each institution (questions 19 – 26), Cronbach’s Alpha was .737.
Finally, for the questions addressing the overall satisfaction of the performance appraisal
106
Table 2 Subgroups of Questions and Cronbach’s Alpha
Questions related to how performance appraisal is used in each institution
Questions Addressing the Appraisal Process at each Institution
Questions Addressing the Overall Satisfaction of the Performance Appraisal Process
Reliability Statistics
.701 8
Cronbach'sAlpha N of Items
Item-Total Statistics
26.67 11.032 .576 .63526.62 12.289 .400 .67427.05 9.037 .766 .56727.00 10.426 .603 .62227.10 12.617 .224 .70527.19 12.494 .172 .72227.10 14.626 -.151 .78327.29 9.292 .714 .583
FeedbackPayPerfImpGoalsNeedsHirDecisionsLegalSupOrgPerf
Scale Mean ifItem Deleted
ScaleVariance if
Item Deleted
CorrectedItem-TotalCorrelation
Cronbach'sAlpha if Item
Deleted
Reliability Statistics
.737 6
Cronbach'sAlpha N of Items
Item-Total Statistics
18.68 7.727 .522 .68617.95 8.194 .540 .68918.37 6.474 .627 .64818.16 7.961 .419 .71517.95 8.723 .385 .72318.63 7.532 .398 .728
TooTimeVaryBiasValidityNegativeInterfere
Scale Mean ifItem Deleted
ScaleVariance if
Item Deleted
CorrectedItem-TotalCorrelation
Cronbach'sAlpha if Item
Deleted
Reliability Statistics
.809 3
Cronbach'sAlpha N of Items
Item-Total Statistics
7.37 2.878 .575 .8327.79 1.648 .683 .7707.58 2.149 .813 .591
MgrSatisfiedEmpSatisfiedInstiSatisfied
Scale Mean ifItem Deleted
ScaleVariance if
Item Deleted
CorrectedItem-TotalCorrelation
Cronbach'sAlpha if Item
Deleted
107
process at each institution (questions 27 - 29), Cronbach’s Alpha was .809. Overall,
when related questions were grouped together to test for reliability and consistency, they
correlated well with each other and the Cronbach Alphas were above a generally
accepted minimal value of .70, suggesting that the questions were reliable to use. The
Flesch Reading Ease test rated the readability of the document on a 100-point scale and
this questionnaire had a score of 43.9. The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level score was 10.1
meaning it could be understood by a 10th grade student. These results suggested that the
questionnaire was written in such a way that it would be easily understood by the Human
Resource directors to whom the questionnaire was sent.
Data Analysis
A survey instrument was emailed to study the use of performance appraisal for
staff at Christian colleges and universities via www.SurveyMonkey.com. Using a 5-point
Likert-type scale as well as other types of multiple choice questions and yes-no questions,
the Human Resource directors were requested to complete the survey online and submit it
to SurveyMonkey.com upon completion. The Likert scale is particularly useful for
ordinal data. A potential pitfall in using the Likert scale is to assume it is an interval
scale and to then use incorrect statistical analysis to describe the data. Analyses of the
data were reported using descriptive statistics including percentile rank and mean scores
for each of the variables.
The following is a breakout of the questions in the Survey of Use of Performance
Appraisals for Staff Positions questionnaire as they related to the three research
108
questions. Each research question is listed below along with the items in the
questionnaire that helped answer the research question and the statistical analysis that
was used.
Research Question 1. To what extent are the Christian colleges and universities in
the United States that are members of the CCCU using performance appraisal for their
staff? Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 addressed this question. The data were
tabulated and reported, and frequencies and percentages were calculated for all responses.
Research Question 2. What benefits do these institutions receive from their
performance appraisal systems? Items 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 27, 28, and 29 addressed
this question. To answer this question, the data were collected using a 5-point Likert-
type scale. Frequencies and percentages were calculated for all responses.
Research Question 3. What are the challenges and pitfalls these institutions
experience using a performance appraisal system? Items 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and
26 addressed this question. To answer this question, the data were collected using a 5-
point Likert-type scale. Frequencies and percentages were calculated for all responses.
There were four additional items in the questionnaire (30-33) that addressed the
demographics of the population that were multiple choice and fill-in-the-blank questions.
Authorization to Conduct the Study
IRB approval was secured by the researcher (see Appendix G for the approval
letter).
109
Originality Score
The University of Central Florida (UCF) College of Graduate Studies requires
that each student’s dissertation or thesis be submitted for originality. It has chosen the
tool Turnitin (iParadigms, 2009) to test for originality. The acceptable score defined by
the graduate advisor for this research was less than or equal to ten percent. Upon initial
submission, the researcher received a score of 42%. With removal of bibliographic and
quoted material the score decreased to 32%, and with the exclusion of matches attributed
to the researcher, the score was further reduced to 12%. An item-by-item review allowed
for an additional reduction in the total score to between 3% and 6%. The document was
approved as original work by the researcher’s graduate advisor.
110
CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA
Introduction
The primary purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which the
colleges and universities that are members of the Council for Christian Colleges and
Universities (CCCU) in the United States are using performance appraisal for their staff
positions. The study also focused on the benefits and challenges that these institutions
experienced in using their performance appraisal systems. This chapter contains the
presentation and analysis of the data collected in the study.
Population
The population surveyed in this study consisted of the 108 colleges and
universities that are members of the CCCU. The data were collected from the responding
institutions during the months of June and July, 2009. A total of 90 (83.3%) of the
member institutions of the CCCU completed and returned the questionnaire to the
researcher. Information concerning the size of the responding institutions, as measured
by the size of the student body, is in Table 3, and as measured by the number of staff and
administrators, in Table 4.
Research Question 1
To what extent are the Christian colleges and universities in the United States that are
members of the CCCU using performance appraisal for their staff?
Table 5 presents the data regarding the use of performance appraisal for the
111
Table 3 Number of Students at Responding Institutions
How many total undergraduate and graduate students does your institution have?
Answer Options Response % Response Count
Less than 1,000 students 21.6% 19 Between 1,000 and 2,000 students 35.2% 31 Between 2,000 and 3,000 students 21.6% 19 More than 3,000 students 21.6% 19 answered question 88
Note: Two institutions did not respond to this question.
Table 4 Number of Staff and Administrators at Responding Institutions
How many staff and administrators (i.e. all employees excluding faculty) does your institution have?
Answer Options Response % Response Count
Less than 200 40.9% 36 Between 200 and 600 54.5% 48 Between 600 and 1,000 4.5% 4 More than 1,000 0.0% 0 answered question 88
Note: Two institutions did not respond to this question.
Table 5 Use of Performance Appraisal for Staff Positions
Does your institution use a performance appraisal system for the evaluation or development of its staff positions?
Answer Options Response % Response Count
Yes 84.4% 76 No 15.6% 14 answered question 90
112
evaluation or development of staff positions at these institutions. The data indicate that
of the 90 institutions that responded to the questionnaire, 84.4% (76 of the institutions)
used a performance appraisal system for their staff positions.
For the 76 institutions that used a performance appraisal system, Table 6 provides
data indicating how long they had used performance appraisal for their staff. The
majority of institutions (71.1%) had used performance appraisal for staff for more than 6
years, while 17.1% of the institutions had used performance appraisal for one to three
years, and 10.5% for four to six years.
Table 6 Length of Time that Performance Appraisal Has Been Used
How long has your institution used a performance appraisal system?
Answer Options Response % Response Count
Less than 1 year 1.3% 1 1 - 3 years 17.1% 13 4 - 6 years 10.5% 8 More than 6 years 71.1% 54 answered question
76 Note: Only 76 institutions use performance appraisal systems.
When asked what kind of performance appraisal system their school used, 98.7%
(75 of 76) responded that they used a manual system using either a word-processing
program or a paper system, while only one school used a software program written
specifically to do performance appraisal. The data are summarized in Table 7. The one
institution that used a software program written specifically for performance appraisal
113
used a program purchased from a software vendor rather than written and developed
internally by the institution.
Table 7 Type of Performance Appraisal System Used
Which of the following best describes the type of performance appraisal system that your institution uses?
Answer Options Response % Response Count
A manual system using either a word-processing program (e.g. Microsoft Word) or a paper system.
98.7% 75
A software program written specifically to do performance appraisals. 1.3% 1
answered question 76
Note: Only 76 institutions use performance appraisal systems.
Table 8 provides a summary of the responses to the question asking how
performance appraisal was used by each institution. Most institutions (89.5%) used
performance appraisal both to review past performance and to improve the effectiveness
of the employees, while 6.6% used performance appraisal to only review past
performance and 3.9% used performance appraisal to only improve the effectiveness of
employees.
For those institutions that used performance appraisal for their staff, 90.8% (69 of
76) administered performance appraisal once a year, while only one school administered
performance appraisal every six months. Six schools provided additional responses
including using an annual appraisal process after an initial 90-day review was completed
114
at the beginning of employment, or giving two reviews in the first year and then an
annual review thereafter. These schools were effectively giving annual reviews after the
initial start-up period (see Table 9).
Table 8 Description of How Performance Appraisal is Used
In your institution, performance appraisals are used primarily to (please check only one box):
Answer Options Response % Response Count
Review past performance 6.6% 5 Improve the effectiveness of the employees 3.9% 3
Both review past performance and improve the effectiveness of the employees
89.5% 68
answered question 76
Table 9 Frequency of Receiving a Formal, Written Performance Appraisal
How often do most employees receive formal, written performance appraisals from their supervisors?
Answer Options Response % Response Count
Once a month 0.0% 0 Once a quarter 0.0% 0 Once every 6 months 1.3% 1 Once a year 90.8% 69 Other (please specify) 7.9% 6 answered question 76
115
Research Question 2
What benefits do these institutions receive from their performance appraisal systems?
In questions six through thirteen in the questionnaire, the respondents were asked
to rate a group of eight statements concerning their performance appraisal system, using a
rating scale of Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree or Disagree, Disagree, or Strongly
Disagree. Table 10 provides the responses to these eight statements.
Table 10 How Performance Appraisal is Used
How are the results of your performance appraisal system used in your institution?
Answer Options Strongly Agree Agree
Neither Agree or Disagree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
Response Count
To provide written feedback to employees about their performance.
52 24 0 0 0 76
To facilitate decisions concerning pay increases, promotions, and layoffs.
11 22 24 9 10 76
To encourage performance improvement.
36 39 0 1 0 76
To set and measure goals. 29 38 7 2 0 76 To determine individual and organizational training and development needs.
14 35 14 10 3 76
To confirm that good hiring decisions are being made.
7 24 31 9 5 76
To provide legal support for personnel decisions. 18 38 15 3 2 76
To improve overall organizational performance.
24 38 7 5 2 76
116
When the Strongly Agree and Agree rankings are grouped together, the statement
“to provide written feedback to employees about their performance” received 100% of
the responses. Additional statements that received 60% or more of the Strongly Agree or
Agree responses were: (a) to encourage performance improvement (99.0%), (b) to set and
measure goals (88.2%), (c) to improve overall organizational performance (81.6%), (d) to
provide legal support for personnel decisions (73.7%), and (e) to determine individual
and organizational training and development needs (64.5%). The remaining two of the
eight statements which received the lowest rankings were: (a) to facilitate decisions
concerning pay increases, promotions, and layoffs (43.4%), and (b) to confirm that good
hiring practices are being made (40.8%).
Each institution was also asked to rank three statements concerning the
satisfaction of their managers, staff, and institution respectively with their performance
appraisal system (see Table 11). The respondents ranked the managers at their
institutions as being either Very Satisfied or Satisfied in 42.7% of the institutions.
Respondents ranked their institution’s employees as being either Very Satisfied or
Satisfied in 34.6% of the institutions. The overall satisfaction level for the institution was
ranked as Very Satisfied or Satisfied in 42.6% of the institutions. No respondents ranked
their institution as being Very Dissatisfied with their performance appraisal system.
Research Question 3
What are the challenges and pitfalls these institutions experience using a performance
appraisal system?
117
Table 11 Satisfaction with Performance Appraisal System
Please indicate answers for the following questions by marking the appropriate circle:
Answer Options Very Satisfied Satisfied
Neither Satisfied or Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied
Response Count
How satisfied are your institution's managers with your performance appraisal system?
2 (2.7%)
30 (40.0%)
29 (38.6%)
14 (18.7%)
0 (0%)
75 (100%)
How satisfied are your institution's employees with your performance appraisal system?
1 (1.3%)
25 (33.3%)
36 (48.0%)
13 (17.4%)
0 (0%)
75 (100%)
The overall satisfaction level of your institution with its performance appraisal system is:
1 (1.3%)
31 (41.3%)
31 (41.3%)
12 (16.1%)
0 (0%) 75
Note: One respondent did not respond to this question.
The respondents were asked to answer a group of eight statements concerning their
performance appraisal system, using a rating scale of Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither
Agree or Disagree, Disagree, or Strongly Disagree (see Table 12). Two of the eight
statements generated a high Disagree or Strongly Disagree ranking from the respondents.
118
Table 12
Challenges and Pitfalls of Performance Appraisal System
Please rate the following statements about your performance appraisal system by marking one circle for each statement.
Answer Options Strongly Agree Agree
Neither Agree or Disagree
Disagree Strongly Disagree
Response Count
It demands too much time and effort from supervisors. 1 7 14 44 9 75
Standards and ratings vary widely and sometimes unfairly from supervisor to supervisor.
3 39 16 13 4 75
The supervisor's personal values and bias can replace organizational standards in the evaluation process.
4 41 16 13 1 75
The validity of the ratings is reduced by supervisory resistance to give the ratings, particularly negative ratings.
6 39 14 12 4 75
Negative feedback can demotivate an employee. 4 26 19 25 1 75
Performance appraisals interfere with the more constructive coaching relationship that should exist between a supervisor and his/her staff.
0 4 13 51 7 75
Managers and staff provide input in the design, development, and choice of criteria used in the appraisal.
5 29 15 24 2 75
The performance appraisal system is periodically reviewed and changed to insure its effectiveness.
9 35 17 13 1 75
Note: One respondent did not respond to this question.
119
For the statement that said that their performance appraisal system “demands too much
time and effort from supervisors,” 70.7% of the respondents either Disagreed or Strongly
Disagreed with this statement. For the statement that said “performance appraisals
interfere with the more constructive coaching relationship that should exist between a
supervisor and his/her staff,” 77.3% of the respondents either Disagreed or Strongly
Disagreed.
Four of the statements generated a Strongly Agree or Agree response that was
over 50%. They included (a) standards and ratings vary widely and sometimes unfairly
from supervisor to supervisor, (b) the supervisor’s personal values and bias can replace
organizational standards in the evaluation process, (c) the validity of the ratings is
reduced by supervisory resistance to give the ratings, particularly negative ratings, and
(d) the performance appraisal system is periodically reviewed and changed to insure its
effectiveness. Each of the eight statements had a rating in the response category of
Neither Agree or Disagree between 17.3% and 25.3%, indicating that these respondents
were either unsure or did not know how to rank that statement for their institution.
Table 13 provides the data summarizing the responses to the question whether or
not the leadership of the institution supported and encouraged the use of performance
appraisal. Ninety-three percent of the respondents indicated that they Strongly Agreed or
Somewhat Agreed that the use of performance appraisal was supported and encouraged
by their leadership. There were only three respondents (3.9%) who indicated they
Somewhat Disagreed with the above statement and two respondents (2.6%) who Strongly
Disagreed with the statement.
120
Table 13 Support by Leadership of the Institution
The use of performance appraisal is supported and encouraged by the leadership of your institution.
Answer Options Response % Response Count
Strongly agree 51.3% 39 Somewhat agree 42.1% 32 Somewhat disagree 3.9% 3 Strongly disagree 2.6% 2 answered question 76
The results of question 15 concerning the sufficiency of training provided to
supervisors to give effective performance appraisal were mixed (see Table 14). Fifty-
three percent of the respondents said that there was not sufficient training provided to
supervisors, while 38.2% said that the training was sufficient and 6.6% said it was more
than sufficient.
Table 14 Training Provided to Supervisors
The amount of training provided supervisors in your institution to give effective performance appraisal is:
Answer Options Response % Response Count
More than sufficient 6.6% 5 Sufficient 38.2% 29 Not sufficient 52.6% 40 None 2.6% 2 answered question 76
121
When a supervisor did not complete a performance appraisal on time, 73.7% of
the respondents said that the supervisor was notified by management and was asked to
complete the review (see Table 15). However, 52.6% of the respondents said that there
was no action taken directly with the supervisor by management when appraisals were
not completed on a timely basis, and some appraisals were never completed. To further
explore this issue, respondents were asked if supervisors’ future performance appraisals
were negatively impacted if the supervisors did not complete the appraisals for their staff.
Only 26.3% responded “yes” to this question.
Table 15 Non-completion of Performance Appraisal by Supervisor
Answer Options Yes No
The supervisor is notified by management and is asked to complete the review. 56 73.7% 20 26.3%
There is no action taken with the supervisor by management and some appraisals are never completed.
40 52.6% 36 47.4%
This will negatively impact the future performance appraisal of the supervisor. 20 26.3% 56 73.7%
answered question 76
Responses to Open-Ended Question
The final question in the questionnaire allowed the respondents to comment or
elaborate on any of the issues addressed in the questionnaire that would complement the
research study. Of the 90 respondents to the questionnaire, 25 respondents provided
122
comments to the open-ended question. This section will highlight some of the more
significant themes that were noted.
There were four responses that indicated the institution had either recently
strengthened or was planning to strengthen its performance planning process in the
future. Their comments included:
1. “am in process of assessing our current performance management system -
and plan to implement a new system more aligned w/ organizational goals,
performance goals, and behavioral competencies.”
2. “We are in the process of moving toward a new approach to performance
appraisal. We have had a campus-wide task force evaluating content and
structure, and selecting a software product. We hope to implement a new
process over the next academic year.”
3. “This is our first year for the PMP.”
4. “We have new performance appraisal system that was begun just last summer
(2008). Top level support is still more lip service than by example, but it is
more support than previously given. Extensive training was provided. A task
force of administrators and staff and HR designed the new process and form.
It is well liked by those that have used it already.”
There were four institutions who indicated that their performance appraisal
system needed improvement. The comments included:
1. “Because our appraisal process is merely evaluative and not necessarily tied to
performance management, it lacks effectiveness. It needs an overhaul;
123
however, this would require time and resources that are not currently available
and I'm not sure if managers and supervisors are willing to commit the time to
accomplish this.”
2. “Human Resources would like to revise the forms used at our institution.”
3. “Our P/A system and compliance is very poor, and is high on our radar to
improve soon!”
4. “I have wanted to revise our appraisal tool during my nearly two years at the
institution but other pressing needs have pushed it lower on the priority scale.”
There was frustration voiced by several respondents concerning the lack of
support for their performance appraisal system by their administrators and staff:
1. “Evaluation forms are sent out for every position every year; something less
than half are returned …I now send the VPs quarterly reports showing
evaluations completed, which has also increased the number returned, but not
above half. I dislike the process, and I think employees do too, because it isn't
applied uniformly. I send all the forms out, but have been evaluated myself
only once in 19 years.”
2. “We have a performance appraisal system in place – most managers do not
enjoy completing the forms and as such, most are delinquent and even
sometimes missed completely. The appraisals are not tied to salary increases
or job promotion. It seems as though it’s simply an exercise that takes up time.
I struggle with trying to get managers to complete the forms.
Sigh…frustrating.”
124
3. “This institution lacks a standardized campus-wide performance appraisal
system. Many employees do not even receive evaluations and nobody is held
accountable for not providing them. As our institution lacks an HR
department, there is no one to oversee these kinds of issues, which is
detrimental to employees and in turn the institution as a whole.”
4. “At present, consistency varies widely in our institution with some
departments adhering to a regular performance appraisal schedule and other
departments avoiding the process. Our goal is to create a campus-wide
structure and system of accountability to improve this.”
Summary
This chapter has presented analyses of the data generated by the responses of 90
(83.3%) Human Resource professionals from the colleges and universities that are
members of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. Of the 90 institutions
that responded, 76 indicated they used performance appraisal for their staff. The survey
instrument, Survey of Use of Performance Appraisal for Staff Positions (Appendix F),
was used to determine if the institutions were using performance appraisal for their staff,
and if so, the perceived benefits and challenges they experienced in using performance
appraisal. This information was used to answer the research questions that guided this
study. A discussion of the results, conclusions, implications, and recommendations based
upon the data is presented in Chapter 5.
125
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Statement of the Problem
The focus of this exploratory study was to determine if the colleges and
universities in the United States that are members of the Council for Christian Colleges
and Universities (CCCU) were using performance appraisal with their staff as an
important management tool. The study was limited to this subset of colleges and
universities because there is little written in the literature on performance appraisal for
these institutions, and because the researcher had a teaching relationship with one of the
schools.
A review of the literature did not yield any study focusing on the use of
performance appraisal for staff positions in Christian colleges and universities, and thus
the present investigation was informed by the work on these issues in other areas. The
purpose of the study was to determine, based on the input of the Human Resource
Director at each institution, how widespread the usage was of performance appraisal
systems and to understand the challenges and pitfalls that the institutions had in using
them. If the study found that these institutions were not using this tool or not using it
effectively with their staff, it would indicate that they could be overlooking the
significant benefits that performance appraisal can create. Using performance appraisal
would provide one way for them to meet the increasing accountability demands they are
experiencing from policymakers and to create the focus and achieve the outcomes they
desire to accomplish. This is particularly true in times of economic crisis when
performance appraisal can help institutions use their resources more efficiently.
126
Methodology
The format chosen to conduct this study was a self-administered, on-line
questionnaire. The Human Resource directors at each CCCU institution were asked to
complete the questionnaire for their institution. A total of 90 (83.3%) of the institutions
completed and returned the questionnaire. The Human Resource directors were
contacted because the performance appraisal process is normally administered by the
Human Resource department. Due to this oversight function, they should have a broad
understanding of the process of performance appraisal and an understanding of the
benefits and challenges of the performance appraisal process at their respective
institutions. The directors would also be positioned to hear feedback from employees and
supervisors concerning these processes.
A list of the Human Resource directors and their contact information was
developed by the researcher from the institution’s Internet site or by calling each
institution. This list became the population of participants that were asked to take part in
this survey.
Summary and Discussion of the Findings
Introduction
The focus of this study was based on a conceptual framework developed by
Winston & Creamer (1997). Performance appraisal is a key component of this
framework, particularly as it relates to other components of the framework which include
supervision and staff development. The performance appraisal component contains
127
certain system requirements which are necessary for performance appraisal to be
successful. They include (a) a dual focus on employee and organizational improvement,
(b) a link from performance appraisal to institutional productivity and rewards, (c) the
recognition of contextual constraints on employee performance, (d) the constant
involvement of all stakeholders, (e) the requirement that procedures are clear, open, and
fair, (f) ongoing review and update of position requirements, (g) the requirement that
appraisers show leadership and recognize their unique contribution to the results of the
appraisals, and (h) the avoidance of all systematic biases (Winston & Creamer, 1997, pp.
281-282). The following discussion relates the findings of this study to the components
of the framework.
Research Question 1
To what extent are the Christian colleges and universities in the United States that are members of the CCCU using performance appraisal for their staff?
The results of this research indicated that 84.4% (76) of the responding
institutions used a performance appraisal system for their staff positions. In addition, 62
of the responding institutions (81.6%) had used a performance appraisal system for four
or more years. As previously reported in this study, there is little literature addressing the
topic of the use of performance appraisal for staff positions in colleges and universities.
In one of the few studies on this topic, Creamer and Winston (1999) found that 26.0% of
student affairs support staff, 33.0% of deans, and 37.0% of directors had not received a
performance appraisal in the past 12 months. This came from a study of 50 institutions
128
from four Carnegie classification types (research institutions, comprehensive colleges and
universities, liberal arts colleges, and two-year colleges).
At first appearance, it would seem that the results of the current study showed a
higher use of performance appraisal for staff than did the study completed by Creamer
and Winston (1999). However, the results are not directly comparable because the
existence of a performance appraisal system at an institution does not necessarily
guarantee that the system was actually being used consistently and with all staff. It
merely means that the institution did have a performance appraisal system in place.
Comments from the current study included statements from the respondents that
performance appraisal was not being consistently utilized across all departments or even
within a department at a given institution, implying that some staff at an institution
received appraisals while other staff did not.
Overall though, the results of the current study - that 84.4% (76) of the responding
institutions did use a performance appraisal system for their staff - suggest that there has
been an increase in the number of institutions that use performance appraisal since the
Creamer and Winston (1999) study was completed. It is also interesting to note that the
findings are comparable with the findings by Grote (2002) that 75.0% to 90.0% of all
companies use a performance appraisal system. This may signal that colleges and
universities have increased their usage of performance appraisal over recent years to be
more comparable with non-academic institutions. The increased usage of performance
appraisal could be attributed to such factors as the escalation in public dissatisfaction
with higher education, the growth of the assessment or accountability movement, the
129
expansion of the use of TQM, the decline in operating budgets, and/or increased
litigation.
The results of the current study indicated that all but one of the institutions
(98.7%) that used a performance appraisal system used a manual system using either a
word-processing program (e.g. Microsoft Word) or a paper system rather than a
commercial software program written specifically to do performance appraisal (e.g.
Trakstar, eAppraisal, or EmpXtrack). These results suggest that either (a) the institutions
did not consider that the use of a software program written specifically for performance
appraisal created sufficient benefit to justify the cost of purchasing a software system, (b)
performance appraisal was not a high enough priority to justify the time and money
needed to evaluate, purchase, and implement a new system, or (c) there were no
resources available for any new programs or improvements to existing programs.
Judging from some of the responses to the open-ended question received in the survey
noted in Chapter 4, the probable reason was performance appraisal was not a high enough
priority or deemed important enough at these institutions to warrant it being allocated
additional time and money.
One of the questions asked of each institution was how performance appraisal was
used in their institution. The literature suggests that performance appraisal serves two
basic purposes: the first is evaluative (or administrative) as the term “appraisal” implies,
and the second is developmental (Brinkerhoff & Kanter, 1980; McKinnon, 1993; Rynes,
Gerhart, & Parks, 2005). The evaluative function refers to the extent to which there has
been progress toward goals as a result of the employee’s efforts. It is backward looking
130
where past performance is reviewed in light of the results achieved. It can include the
use of performance appraisal for salary management, promotions, terminations, layoffs,
and identifying poor performance (Boswell & Boudreau, 2000). It is used not only to
enable organizations to make decisions about individuals, but also to compare candidates
on some type of objective basis (Brinkerhoff & Kanter).
The development function is forward looking, directed towards increasing the
capacity of employees to be more productive, effective, efficient and satisfied in the
future. It covers such things as job skills, career planning, employee motivation, and
effective coaching between mangers and subordinates. It is any endeavor concerned with
enhancing attitudes, experiences, and skills that improve the effectiveness of employees
(Boswell & Bourdeau, 2002).
Almost all (89.5%) respondents to the current study indicated that their institution
used performance appraisal to review past performance and to improve the effectiveness
of the employees. Only 6.6% said that they used performance appraisal solely to review
past performance, and 3.9% said they used it only to improve the effectiveness of their
employees. This suggests that most institutions feel that performance appraisal should be
used for both purposes simultaneously. Boswell and Bourdeau (2002) found that some
research indicated that the developmental and evaluative uses of performance appraisal
are incompatible and should not be used together, while other research indicated there is
either no correlation, or a slight positive correlation, when they are used together. A total
of 10.5% of the respondents in this study used performance appraisal for either evaluative
or developmental purposes, but not for both. This is a small percentage of the total and it
131
suggests that these institutions are not receiving the maximum benefits available from the
appraisal process. These institutions may feel there is a conflict when evaluative and
developmental appraisals are done together. This is particularly true if an employee’s
compensation is impacted by the results of the appraisal, since it could influence how
honest and truthful a supervisor is with the employee. The results of the current study
strongly suggest, however, that most institutions feel that both purposes of performance
appraisal can be used together effectively. Additional research is needed with a larger
population to clarify this important question.
When the responding institutions were asked about the frequency in which
performance appraisals were given to their staff, most respondents (90.8%) said their
institutions gave annual appraisals. In reading through the literature on this topic, an
annual performance appraisal was by far the most common frequency. In fact, the word
“annual” is often incorporated into the name of the system or process used at an
institution, and performance appraisals are commonly called “annual reviews” or “annual
appraisals”. They are most frequently given annually because they are typically related
to the institutional strategic planning process and to the annual employee salary
evaluation process. Institutions typically engage in an annual planning process which
includes both long-range strategic planning and an annual budget process. Since the
performance appraisal process helps link the goals and outcomes of individual employees
to the institutional goals, it makes sense that the appraisal process would also occur
annually. In addition, because institutions often link annual salary evaluations to the
132
results of performance appraisals, it is logical that the term of the appraisal process would
coincide with the salary evaluation process.
Research Question 2
What benefits do these institutions receive from their performance appraisal systems?
The results of the research indicate strong agreement with the literature in the area
of benefits received by the institutions in the study. As discussed in Chapter 4 (and
included in Table 10), each of the eight statements in the questionnaire that described
possible benefits of performance appraisal received a rating of Strongly Agree or Agree
from at least 41.0% of the respondents and went as high as 100% of the respondents.
This supports the research by Grote (2002), as well as the research by Mohrman,
Resnick-West, and Lawler (1989) who found that the appraisal process can a) provide a
managerial instrument for goal setting and performance planning with employees, b)
encourage interaction concerning employee growth and development, c) make available a
basis for wage and salary changes, and d) generate information for a variety of human
resource decisions. These results also support the findings of Murphy and Cleveland
(1995) who identified several ways in which performance appraisal could help
organizations including a) informing decisions regarding promotions, layoffs, and
transfers, b) improving employees’ decisions concerning development needs and career
decisions, and c) providing tools for evaluating the effectiveness of current or planned
ways of operating.
133
The preceding research findings relate directly to three of the system requirements
that were described by Winston and Creamer (1997) in their conceptual framework as
necessary components for successful performance appraisal. These three components are
a dual focus on employee and organizational improvement, a link from performance
appraisal to institutional productivity and rewards, and an ongoing review and update of
position requirements. The results of the survey therefore strongly support the
conceptual framework which states the importance of these components.
Finally, the results of the research also support the statement by Murphy and
Cleveland (1995) that none of the possible benefits will automatically accrue to an
organization due to the mere presence of a performance appraisal system. Rather, the
organization must plan and implement its performance appraisal system well to incur
some or all of these benefits. The results of this study found there were many institutions
that did use a performance appraisal system, but they were not receiving all the potential
benefits that an appraisal system could offer. This was observed, either directly or
implied, in the responses to the open-ended question in the questionnaire which asked
respondents to comment or elaborate on any of the issues addressed in the questionnaire
(see Chapter 4). These comments addressed several of the other principles found in the
conceptual framework that were not being implemented well which Winston and
Creamer (1997) identified as critical to a successful performance appraisal system. These
included the recognition of contextual constraints on employee performance, the constant
involvement of all stakeholders, the requirement that procedures are clear, open and fair,
134
the requirement that appraisers show leadership and recognize their unique contribution
to the results of the appraisals, and the avoidance of all systematic biases.
Research Question 3
What are the challenges and pitfalls these institutions experience using a performance appraisal system? The challenges associated with the design, implementation, and functional use of
appraisal systems are well documented (Longenecker & Nykodym, 1996). The responses
in the current study indicated agreement with several of the challenges and pitfalls found
in the literature regarding the use of a performance appraisal system (Bretz, Milkovich, &
Read, 1992; Oberg, 1972). These include (a) the validity of the ratings is reduced by
supervisory resistance to give the ratings, particularly negative ratings, (b) the
supervisor’s personal values and bias can replace organizational standards in the
evaluation process, and (c) standards and ratings vary widely and sometimes unfairly
from supervisor to supervisor. The total of the Strongly Agree and Agree responses for
these challenges was significant, ranging from 56.0% to 60.0%. There was less support
(40.0%) for the statement that negative feedback can demotivate an employee. Finally,
there was very little support in the current study for the statements that said that
performance appraisal demands too much time and effort from supervisors (10.6%), and
that performance appraisal interferes with the more constructive coaching relationship
that should exist between a supervisor and his/her staff (5.3%). Two of the challenges
and pitfalls noted in the literature can arise when an institution does not allow managers
and staff to provide input in the design, development, and choice of criteria used in the
135
appraisal, and the performance appraisal system is not periodically reviewed and changed
to insure its effectiveness. The current study found that 34.7% of the institutions did not
allow managers and staff to provide input in the appraisal, and 18.6% did not periodically
review and change their appraisal systems. The Winston and Creamer conceptual
framework suggests that these institutions were not achieving the maximum results from
their appraisal systems because the institutions were not allowing the constant
involvement of all their stakeholders, nor were they having an ongoing review and update
of their appraisal systems.
In the current study, it was found that 42.6% of the respondents were either Very
Satisfied or Satisfied with their institution’s appraisal system and 16.0% were
dissatisfied. This is in contrast to the research by Longenecker and Fink (2007) which
found that 76% of 243 managers in 25 Fortune 1000 service and manufacturing
companies were less than satisfied with their performance appraisal process. However,
the difference may be explained by the fact that the Longenecker and Fink study
requested responses from multiple managers at each of several companies whereas the
current study requested feedback from only the Human Resource Director at each
institution. The Human Resource Directors may have had a biased view of the appraisal
system at their institutions since they had ownership and responsibility for the success of
the appraisal system and may not have wanted to criticize a system for which they were
responsible.
A final challenge or pitfall in using a performance appraisal system is lack of
leadership support for the process. Leadership refers here to the top office in the
136
university or college – the Office of the President. Strong support by leadership for the
appraisal process is needed to help make the process beneficial. In the current study,
93.4% of the respondents said the leadership of their institution supported and
encouraged the performance appraisal system at their institution. If the responses to this
question are viewed in isolation, it would appear that there was very strong leadership
support for performance appraisal at the responding institutions. Only 6.5% of the
respondents disagreed that there was strong leadership support at their institution.
However, the responses to two additional questions in the survey seemed to at least
partially contradict the results of this question.
One question asked if the amount of training provided to supervisors in their
institution who give performance appraisal was sufficient. Fifty-three percent of the
respondents said that the training was not sufficient, and an additional 2.6% said there
was no training given. It is difficult to accept the conclusion that performance appraisal
is supported and encouraged by the leadership of the institution when over 55% of the
institutions provide either little or no training for their supervisors for doing performance
appraisal. This question also suggests that due to the high percentage of institutions that
do not provide sufficient training, this represents a significant opportunity for these
institutions to improve their appraisal systems.
In a related question which asked about the implications for supervisors when
they did not complete an appraisal on time, 52.6% of the respondents said there was no
action taken with the supervisors by management, and some appraisals were never
completed. In addition, 26.3% said it would not negatively impact the future
137
performance appraisal of the supervisor. These responses indicate that leadership support
of the appraisal process may have been lacking at these institutions since resources were
not being allocated to provide sufficient training for the supervisors, and since there were
no adverse implications for supervisors who were not carrying out that aspect of their
jobs. It could be that the leadership support of the appraisal system was in word only, but
not backed up by the commitment of time and financial resources. This perceived lack of
support for performance appraisal by the institutional leadership is a significant challenge
to accomplishing a successful performance appraisal process. It does not satisfy one of
the system requirements in the conceptual framework that requires supervisors (including
leadership) to recognize the importance of their contribution to the results of the appraisal
process by doing appraisals in a timely and consistent way.
Implications for Practice
The results of this study showed that while most (84.4%) of the 108 institutions
that are members of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities were using a
performance appraisal system for their staff, there were still 14 institutions that were not
using an appraisal system. According to the results of the current study, which support
much of the literature on this topic, these 14 institutions could receive some or all of the
following benefits if they implemented an appraisal system: (a) provide a tool for goal
setting and performance planning with their employees, (b) provide written feedback to
employees about their performance, (c) encourage performance improvement, (d) provide
a basis for wage and salary changes, (e) provide legal support for personnel decisions, (f)
138
determine individual and organizational training and development needs, and (g) improve
overall organizational improvement. There is sufficient evidence obtained through this
research to encourage these institutions that do not have appraisal systems to devote the
necessary resources to implement an effective performance appraisal system.
While most of the institutions in this survey did use an appraisal system for their
staff, only one used software written specifically for performance appraisal. An
automated software appraisal system can improve the appraisal process by making it
simpler for supervisors (a) to quickly find the appropriate forms/questions to use for the
appraisal, (b) to stay current in completing their appraisals by receiving automatic
reminders from the system, (c) to electronically route the appraisals for the necessary
approvals, and (d) to store and be able to find past appraisals. The simpler the appraisal
process is for supervisors, the more likely they will be to complete their performance
appraisals, and this could help increase the overall completion rate for appraisals in the
institution. These institutions should consider implementing an automated software
appraisal system to improve their process.
The high percentage (89.9%) of institutions that use performance appraisal for
both reviewing past performance (evaluative) and improving the effectiveness of the
employees (developmental) suggests that these institutions have found sufficient value
and benefit in using it for both reasons. There were no responses in the study that gave
reasons why performance appraisal should only be used for one purpose or the other.
The implication is that the institutions that use it only for reviewing past performance or
139
for improving the effectiveness of their employees should consider using it for both
purposes.
Almost all respondents (90.8%) said their appraisal system was set up on an
annual cycle. However, several comments indicated there was considerable
inconsistency in the application of the one-year cycle across various departments or even
within the same department. Some departments or supervisors abided by the policy and
others did not. This behavior can negatively impact the morale of employees when they
see the appraisal process used inconsistently within their department or across multiple
departments. This could seem unfair to some employees, particularly if their
compensation is impacted by the result of, or lack of, a current performance appraisal. It
also diminishes the perceived value of the entire appraisal process when it is
inconsistently used within the organization because it suggests that the leadership of the
institution does not really value the process. The implication is that institutions could do
a better job enforcing the current annual appraisal process with all supervisors to ensure
consistency throughout the institution.
When the respondents were asked if the results of performance appraisal were
used to facilitate decisions concerning pay increases, promotions, and layoffs, 31.6% said
they neither agreed nor disagreed with this statement. This is a high percentage given the
respondents’ responsibility over their respective institutions’ Human Resources
departments and appraisal processes, and it suggests that performance appraisal is not
used for this purpose at these institutions. An additional 25.0% of the respondents said
they Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed with this statement. Thus, up to 56.6% of the
140
respondents did not indicate performance appraisal was used to facilitate decisions
concerning pay increases, promotions, and layoffs. The implication is that these
institutions could increase the relevancy, usefulness, and importance of performance
appraisal by using it as one factor in decisions concerning pay changes and job changes.
Another area of weakness revealed in this study was the lack of use of
performance appraisal to determine individual and organizational training and
development needs. Seventeen percent of the institutions did not use performance
appraisal for this purpose, and an additional 18.4% of the respondents were not sure if it
was used for this purpose. This appears to be another opportunity to improve the
usefulness of performance appraisal as a management tool if an emphasis is placed on
determining the training and development needs of the staff. Staff typically respond well
to opportunities given them to improve their skills and future career opportunities, and
performance appraisal could be a very helpful tool to accomplish this.
There were several other areas where some of the responding institutions in the
study could potentially improve the benefits they received from performance appraisal.
This includes using performance appraisal to provide legal support for personnel
decisions, to confirm that good hiring decisions are being made, and to improve overall
organizational performance. The responses to these statements that either disagreed with
or did not know ranged from 18.4% to 59.2%.
This study found that 93.4% of the respondents thought the leadership of their
institutions supported and encouraged the use of performance appraisal. Yet when asked
if sufficient training was provided to supervisors to give effective performance appraisals,
141
55.2% said that the training was either not sufficient or there was no training given. In
addition, in many institutions management did not follow up with the supervisor when
the supervisor failed to complete an appraisal on time or at all, nor was there any negative
impact on the appraisal of the supervisor. This suggests that leadership was not
supporting and encouraging the use of performance appraisal in the institution. This
notable lack of leadership support would be recognized by the supervisors and the staff,
and it would be a negative influence on them concerning the importance and value of
performance appraisal. The implication is that leadership has a strong influence over the
perception of the value of the appraisal process at their institution, and the perceived
value and benefit of performance appraisal could be strengthened if leadership provided
the resources needed to do performance appraisal well. The leadership should lead by
example, being consistent and timely in completing the appraisals for their immediate
staff, and then requiring that their staff do the same for their employees. Without this top
leadership support, the appraisal system will not be successful.
There was strong support (70.7%) in the study among the respondents that the
performance appraisal process did not demand too much time and effort from
supervisors. Similarly, there was strong support (77.3%) that performance appraisal did
not interfere with the more constructive coaching relationship that should exist between a
supervisor and his/her staff. There was also little support in the literature for the
argument that performance appraisal demanded too much time and effort from
supervisors, or that it interfered with the coaching relationship between supervisors and
their staff. The findings of this study therefore supported the literature. The implication
142
is that institutions should not accept these two issues as reasons for not doing
performance appraisal.
There was also strong support in the study for the statements that standards and
ratings vary widely and sometimes unfairly from supervisor to supervisor, that the
supervisor’s personal values and bias can replace organizational standards in the
evaluation process, and that the validity of the ratings is reduced by supervisory
resistance to give the ratings, particularly negative ratings. These potential biases are
noted in the literature (Bretz, Milkovich, & Read, 1992; Oberg, 1972), and they can be
reduced or minimized by providing sufficient training for supervisors, and by allowing
more time for the appraisal process. This is another argument supporting the need for
and the value of providing regular and thorough training for the use of effective
performance appraisal.
When asked if managers and staff provide input in the design, development, and
choice of criteria used in the appraisal, only 45.4% said they agreed with this statement.
For the remaining 54.6% of institutions that did not do this, it represents an opportunity
for them to improve their appraisal system by soliciting input from their staff and
managers, and to thereby increase the ownership of the process from these people. This
would be an excellent way to increase the effectiveness of their appraisal system. Similar
improvement appears to be achievable for 41.3% of the institutions if they would
periodically review and change their appraisal systems to insure their effectiveness.
Appraisal systems must be kept current to reflect and keep up with the changes occurring
within the institutions and the changes that can occur in specific job responsibilities.
143
Finally, of the 90 respondents to the survey, only 42.7% indicated that their
institution was satisfied or very satisfied with their performance appraisal system. The
remaining respondents were either dissatisfied or uncertain about their appraisal system.
So while most of the institutions in the study (84.4%) were using an appraisal system,
only 42.7% were actually satisfied with it. The implication is that there is much room for
improvement in the appraisal process for many of these institutions.
A brief summary of the aforementioned implications for practice are listed below:
1. Institutions that do not have a performance appraisal system should devote the
necessary resources to implement such a system.
2. Institutions that do not have an automated appraisal system should consider
implementing such a system to improve their appraisal process and to increase
its ease of use.
3. Institutions should use their appraisal systems for both evaluative and
developmental purposes.
4. Institutions should do a better job enforcing the current annual appraisal
process to ensure consistency and timeliness of use by all supervisors
throughout the institution.
5. Institutions could increase the relevancy, usefulness, and importance of
performance appraisal by using it as a factor in decisions concerning pay
changes and job changes.
6. Institutions should use performance appraisal to identify the training and
development needs of their staff.
144
7. Institutions could increase the perceived value and benefit of performance
appraisal by providing the resources needed to do performance appraisal well.
8. Institutions should not allow the excuses that performance appraisal demands
too much time and effort from supervisors, or that it interferes with the
coaching relationship between supervisors and their staff, as reasons not to do
performance appraisal.
9. Institutions can reduce the impact of potential biases in the appraisal process
by providing regular and thorough training for their supervisors.
10. Institutions can increase the success of their appraisal systems by soliciting
more input into their appraisal systems from staff and managers, and by
periodically reviewing and changing their appraisal systems to insure their
effectiveness.
Implications for Future Research
A strength of this study was the very high response rate obtained from the
questionnaire that was sent to the colleges and universities that are members of the
CCCU. A total of 90 responses (83.3%) were received from a population of 108
institutions. The high response rate provided strong credibility for the responses from
this population, and it indicated a high level of interest in the topic. A key finding of the
study is that although there is very high use of performance appraisal (84.4%) for staff
positions among the population studied, there are significant criticisms and challenges
being faced by the responding institutions. This suggests that there are not sufficient
145
resources being provided to the appraisal process by most of the institutions to insure its
overall success, which in turn suggests a lack of top leadership support for the process.
If the study were done again, questions would be added to seek more direct input
from the respondents concerning how their current appraisal system could be improved.
Oftentimes employees who are most closely involved in a process have the most insight
into how improvements could be made. In the open-ended question, there were some
responses that addressed this issue, but the study could have been more intentional in
seeking out this information.
The study could have also been strengthened by asking additional open-ended
questions where more in-depth explanations and understandings could have been
obtained from the respondents. This may have brought greater clarity and understanding
to some of the responses received in the study. Finally, a clear definition for the term
“leadership” should have been provided since some respondents may have interpreted
this term to mean their direct supervisor rather than the president of the institution.
Based on the research presented in this study, the following recommendations are
made for future study:
1. It is recommended that this study be replicated with institutions from each of
the four Carnegie classification types (research institutions, comprehensive
colleges and universities, liberal arts colleges, and two-year colleges) to
determine if there are differences between the CCCU institutions and other
colleges and universities.
146
2. It is recommended that this study be expanded to include all religiously
affiliated colleges and universities to determine if there are differences
between CCCU institutions and all other religiously affiliated institutions.
3. It is recommended that research be completed concerning the timelines and
performance appraisal forms used by each institution in the CCCU to
determine if there is congruency among them concerning the specific types of
questions asked, the format of the questions, and the issues addressed by the
questions.
4. It is recommended that additional research be completed with each CCCU
member institution to determine if, in addition to the annual performance
appraisal meeting, other formal or informal planning meetings take place
during the year for each staff member to supplement the appraisal process.
This research would evaluate the purpose of the additional meetings, their
structure, and their frequency.
5. It is recommended that research be completed to determine the specific types
of performance appraisal training that are provided to supervisors by some
institutions to determine which types of training are most effective for the
success of performance appraisal systems.
6. It is recommended that this study be replicated with the employees and
supervisors of the CCCU institutions to determine if their opinions and
experiences with their appraisal system are consistent with those given by the
Human Resource Directors.
147
7. It is recommended that research be completed to determine if there are
perceived differences in the benefits and challenges of performance appraisal
depending on the generation being evaluated (e.g. Generation X, Generation
Y, and Boomers). It would be determined if one generation perceives more
value from the appraisal process compared to another, or if the generational
differences suggest varying approaches to how performance appraisal is
carried out, such as diversity in the types of questions used in the appraisal
process or in the process/structure for carrying out performance appraisal.
8. It is recommended that this study be replicated with the employees and
supervisors of the CCCU institutions to determine if there are differences
between various departments at the same institution.
148
CASE STUDY REVISITED
David accepted the position of Dean of Student Affairs in his state’s most
renowned university a year ago after having spent the previous 20 years in another
university in his state. The application process for this position had been quite
competitive with several very qualified applicants, from both within and outside
the university, having applied for the position. David had felt very fortunate to
have received the job offer, and as a result he had experienced a certain sense of
responsibility and pressure to perform well in this position.
Shortly after beginning his new position, David’s supervisor had requested
a meeting with him to discuss the expectations that his supervisor had for him. In
the meeting, David had the opportunity to give input into the discussion of what
his goals would be for the ensuing 12 months, and his supervisor had listened
closely and with interest to his ideas. His supervisor had also helped him
understand the institutional goals of the university and how David’s position
would help the university achieve its goals. David had left the meeting with a
clear idea of what was expected of him over the next year and how he would be
evaluated in his new position.
Now a year later, his supervisor had just met with him to review his
performance over the past year. In this performance appraisal, they had discussed
each specific goal that had been established a year ago, and what the results had
been towards achieving the goals. Since David and his supervisor had periodic
discussions over the past year about how he was doing in his position and the
goals that were established, there were no surprises that came out in this annual
appraisal. He left the meeting feeling very affirmed in his new position by his
supervisor. He had a clear understanding of what his supervisor thought of his
performance, as well as what the expectations were for the next 12 months. He
was very encouraged and motivated to now begin his second year in this position.
149
APPENDIX A: CHRONOLOGY OF EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
150
A chronology of the major milestones in the evolution of employee performance management in the Federal Government is presented below.
Year Actions
1883 Pendleton Act, or Civil Service Act
Attempted to provide a merit system to end favoritism. Required promotions by merit competition, but no centralized appraisal system was established.
1912 First Law on Appraisal
An appropriations act directed the U.S. Civil Service Commission (now the U.S. Office of Personnel Management) to establish a uniform efficiency rating system for all agencies.
1923 Classification Act of 1923
Resulted in establishment of a graphic rating scale in 1924, which was used until 1935. Was effective, but unpopular.
Supervisor marked along a scale for each service rendered.
1935 Uniform Efficiency Rating System
The Civil Service Commission established the Uniform Efficiency Rating System by regulation, which was used until 1950.
Factors were grouped under the headings Quality of Performance, Productiveness, and Qualifications. There were five rating levels for each of the three categories, and also five summary rating levels.
1940 Ramspeck Act
Directed establishment of independent Boards of Review to decide rating appeals in each agency. Boards included the Civil Service Commission and employee representatives.
1950 Performance Rating Act
Purpose was to identify the best and weakest employees and to improve supervisor-employee relations. Required the establishment of appraisal systems within all agencies with prior approval by the Civil Service
Commission. Established three adjective summary rating levels: Outstanding, Satisfactory, and Unsatisfactory.
Employees could still appeal ratings, but now through a statutory board of three members, one from an agency, one selected by employees, and the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission.
1954 Incentive Awards Act
Authorized honorary recognition and cash payments for superior accomplishment, suggestions, inventions, special acts or services, or other personal efforts.
1958 Government Employees' Training Act
Provided for training to improve performance and to prepare for future advancement.
151
1962 Salary Reform Act
Required an acceptable level of competence determination for granting General Schedule within-grade increases.
Provided for the denial of the within-grade increase when performance is below the acceptable level. Authorized an additional step increase for high quality performance.
1978 Civil Service Reform Act
Agencies required to develop appraisal systems for all Federal employees.
Office of Personnel Management approval of appraisal systems required. Appraisals must be based on job-related performance standards.
Agencies must encourage employee participation in establishing performance standards. Appeal of appraisals outside an agency was eliminated.
Results of the appraisal must be used as a basis for training, rewarding, reassigning, promoting, reducing in grade, retaining, and removing employees.
Employees can be removed for unacceptable performance on one or more critical elements, but only after being provided an opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance. The standard of proof was reduced from
preponderance of the evidence to substantial evidence. Reductions in grade and removals are appealable to the Merit Systems Protection Board.
Established a separate performance appraisal system for Senior Executive Service employees.
One or more fully successful rating levels, a minimally satisfactory level, and an unsatisfactory level required. Agency Performance Review Boards to make recommendations to appointing officials on final ratings required.
Established performance-related pay authorities.
Provided for performance awards for career executives; at least a Fully Successful rating required, and recommendation of the Performance Review Board.
Provided for Senior Executive Service Meritorious (career) executive awards ($10,000 for sustained accomplishment over a period of years; limited to 5 percent of executives) and Distinguished (career) executives awards ($20,000 for sustained extraordinary accomplishment, limited to 1% of executives).
Merit Pay established for supervisors and management officials in Grades GS 13-15 with funding for merit increases limited to what would have been paid as within-grade increases, quality step increases, and half of
comparability adjustments (employees were guaranteed half of comparability adjustments only).
1984 Civil Service Retirement Spouse Equity Act
Established a 5 percent minimum performance award for Senior Executive Service employees. Merit Pay System abolished and Performance Management and Recognition System (PMRS) established. PMRS Employees rated Fully Successful or higher guaranteed full comparability increases, with Minimally
Successful getting half, and Unacceptable getting none. PMRS Employees guaranteed merit increases of specific amount based on their performance ratings and
position in pay range for their grade level. Performance awards program for PMRS employees established, with a minimum funding level from .75 percent
to 1.15 percent of estimated aggregate salaries over five years and a minimum performance award of 2 percent of employee's salary required for an Outstanding rating. Maximum award funding was set at 1.5 percent of
estimated aggregate salaries. Performance appraisal revisions in PMRS include five summary rating levels required, no forced distributions of
ratings allowed, and joint participation in setting standards required.
1985 Final Performance Management and Recognition System appraisal and pay regulations issued.
Implemented legal provisions regarding general increases, merit increases, and performance awards. Established procedures for determining merit increases and performance awards for unrateable employees.
Described pay-setting procedures when employees move between pay systems. Established minimum appraisal periods and procedures for rating employees who are detailed to other
152
positions. Required higher level approval of ratings and performance-based personnel actions.
1986 Final Performance Management System regulations issued.
Appraisal regulations for General Schedule and Prevailing Rate employees and for SES employees issued, which paralleled Performance Management and Recognition System appraisal regulations of 1985.
Regulatory pay-for-performance system established.
Fully Successful rating required for within-grade increases. Outstanding rating required for quality step increases.
Fully Successful rating required for career-ladder promotions. Performance award program required for General Schedule and Prevailing Rate employees.
1989 Legislation extends the Performance Management and Recognition System (PMRS).
Revised merit increase amount for Fully Successful employees in the middle third of the pay range from one-third to one-half of a merit increase, to parallel step increases in the General Schedule.
Set minimum performance awards funding at 1.15 percent of estimated aggregate salaries for duration of the extension.
Allowed for the reassignment, removal, or reduction in grade of PMRS employees who did not attain a fully successful level of performance after being given an opportunity to do so.
Revised Senior Executive Service appraisal regulations.
Permitted three to five summary rating levels. Must include an Unsatisfactory, Minimally Satisfactory and Fully Successful level.
Deleted requirement for rating period to end between June 30 and September 30.
1991 Legislation again extends the Performance Management and Recognition System.
Allowed using a written statement of work objectives to establish performance requirements. Removed requirement for mandatory performance award for employees rated Outstanding and the
accompanying 2 percent minimum award.
Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act
Provided specific legislative authority for payment of rating-based cash awards to General Schedule employees like those authorized under the Performance Management and Recognition System.
Provided authority to grant time off as an incentive award.
1992 Revised regulations on summary rating levels for General Schedule and Prevailing Rate appraisal systems.
Allowed summary ratings at 3, 4, or 5 levels but required agencies to include Unacceptable, Fully Successful, and Outstanding levels.
1993 Performance Management and Recognition System (PMRS) terminated.
Provided for orderly termination of the PMRS and payout of merit increases and performance awards based on October 1993 ratings.
Provided for phased conversion of employees not on a step rate back to step rates based on specified personnel changes.
Retained authority to pay employees at non-step rates until changes occur to place all employees on a step
153
U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20415 | (202) 606-1800 | TTY (202) 606-2532”
rate.
1995 Performance management regulations revised.
Further decentralized the performance management program to allow agencies to develop programs to meet their individual needs and cultures.
Established 8 permissible summary rating patterns allowing from two to five levels for summary ratings. Combined all award authorities in one part of the regulations, 5 CFR 451.
Streamlined the appraisal system approval process.
1997 Revised regulations on reduction in force and performance management.
Allowed flexible crediting between 12 and 20 additional years of service retention credit for ratings of record given under different summary level patterns.
Retained traditional 12-16-20 year crediting when all ratings of record being credited were given under a single summary level pattern.
Revised credit averaging to use actual ratings of record given without filling in the blanks with presumed fully successful.
Removed use of presumed fully successful ratings and replaced them with credit based on the modal rating when employee had no ratings of record.
Provided for immediate or delayed implementation at agency discretion to allow for education, partnership, and automated system revision efforts.
1998 Revised regulations on ratings of record.
Codified long-standing Office of Personnel Management policy regarding ratings of record. Described when a rating of record is considered final.
Prohibited retroactive, carryover, and assumed ratings of record. Provided limited circumstances under which an agency can change a rating of record.
154
APPENDIX B: COPYRIGHT PERMISSION LETTERS
155
Copyright Permission Letter from John Wiley & Sons
156
Copyright Permission from C.O. Longenecker
157
APPENDIX C: INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL FOR CHRISTIAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
158
Members of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities Campus Name Location Abilene Christian University Abilene, TX Anderson University Anderson, IN Asbury College Wilmore, KY Azusa Pacific University Azusa, CA Belhaven College Jackson, MS Bethel College--IN Mishawaka, IN Bethel University Saint Paul, MN Biola University La Mirada, CA Bluefield College Bluefield, VA Bluffton University Bluffton, OH Bryan College Dayton, TN California Baptist University Riverside, CA Calvin College Grand Rapids, MI Campbellsville University Campbellsville, KY Carson-Newman College Jefferson City, TN Cedarville University Cedarville, OH College of the Ozarks Point Lookout, MO Colorado Christian University Lakewood, CO Corban College and Graduate School Salem, OR Cornerstone University Grand Rapids, MI Covenant College Lookout Mountain, GA Crichton College Memphis, TN Crown College Saint Bonifacius, MN Dallas Baptist University Dallas, TX Dordt College Sioux Center, IA East Texas Baptist University Marshall, TX Eastern Mennonite University Harrisonburg, VA Eastern Nazarene College Quincy, MA Eastern University St Davids, PA Erskine College Due West, SC Evangel University Springfield, MO Fresno Pacific University Fresno, CA Geneva College Beaver Falls, PA George Fox University Newberg, OR Gordon College Wenham, MA Goshen College Goshen, IN Grace College & Seminary Winona Lake, IN Greenville College Greenville, IL Hardin-Simmons University Abilene, TX Hope International University Fullerton, CA Houghton College Houghton, NY
159
Houston Baptist University Houston, TX Howard Payne University Brownwood, TX Huntington University Huntington, IN Indiana Wesleyan University Marion, IN John Brown University Siloam Springs, AR Judson College--AL Marion, AL Judson University Elgin, IL Kentucky Christian University Grayson, KY King College Bristol, TN Lee University Cleveland, TN LeTourneau University Longview, TX Lipscomb University Nashville, TN Louisiana College Pineville, LA Malone University Canton, OH Master's College & Seminary, The Santa Clarita, CA Messiah College Grantham, PA MidAmerica Nazarene University Olathe, KS Milligan College Johnson City, TN Mississippi College Clinton, MS Missouri Baptist University Saint Louis, MO Montreat College Montreat, NC Mount Vernon Nazarene University Mount Vernon, OH North Greenville University Tigerville, SC North Park University Chicago, IL Northwest Christian University Eugene, OR Northwest Nazarene University Nampa, ID Northwest University Kirkland, WA Northwestern College--IA Orange City, IA Northwestern College--MN Saint Paul, MN Nyack College Nyack, NY Oklahoma Baptist University Shawnee, OK Oklahoma Christian University Oklahoma City, OK Oklahoma Wesleyan University Bartlesville, OK Olivet Nazarene University Bourbonnais, IL Oral Roberts University Tulsa, OK Palm Beach Atlantic University West Palm Beach, FL Point Loma Nazarene University San Diego, CA Roberts Wesleyan College Rochester, NY San Diego Christian College El Cajon, CA Seattle Pacific University Seattle, WA Shorter College Rome, GA Simpson University Redding, CA Southeastern University Lakeland, FL Southern Nazarene University Bethany, OK
160
Southern Wesleyan University Central, SC Southwest Baptist University Bolivar, MO Spring Arbor University Spring Arbor, MI Sterling College Sterling, KS Tabor College Hillsboro, KS Taylor University Upland, IN Toccoa Falls College Toccoa Falls, GA Trevecca Nazarene University Nashville, TN Trinity Christian College Palos Heights, IL Trinity International University Deerfield, IL Union University Jackson, TN University Of Mary Hardin-Baylor Belton, TX University of Sioux Falls Sioux Falls, SD University Of The Southwest Hobbs, NM Vanguard Univ. of Southern California Costa Mesa, CA Warner Pacific College Portland, OR Warner University Lake Wales, FL Wayland Baptist University Plainview, TX Waynesburg University Waynesburg, PA Westmont College Santa Barbara, CA Wheaton College Wheaton, IL Whitworth University Spokane, WA Williams Baptist College Walnut Ridge, AR Source: Downloaded on March 25, 2009 from http://www.cccu.org/members_and_affiliates
161
APPENDIX D: RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL FOR CHRISTIAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
162
Religious Affiliation of Members of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities
1. American Baptist (3)
2. Assemblies of God Church (4)
3. Associate Reformed Presbyterian (1)
4. Baptist General Association of Virginia (5)
5. Christian Churches and Churches of Christ (7)
6. Christian Reformed Church (2)
7. Christian and Missionary Alliance, The (4)
8. Church of God, Anderson (3)
9. Church of God, Cleveland (1)
10. Church of Nazarene (8)
11. Evangelical Covenant Church (1)
12. Evangelical Free Church (2)
13. Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches (1)
14. Free Methodist Church (4)
15. Friends (2)
16. General Conference Baptist (1)
17. Mennonite Church (5)
18. Missionary Church (1)
19. Non-Denominational (1)
20. Presbyterian Church (USA) (6)
21. Presbyterian Church in America (1)
22. Reformed Church in America (1)
23. Reformed Presbyterian of North America (1)
24. Southern Baptist (8)
25. United Brethren Church (1)
26. Wesleyan Church (4)
Source: Downloaded March 25, 2009 from http://www.cccu.org/members_and_affiliates
163
APPENDIX E: EXAMPLES OF EMAILS SENT TO RECIPIENTS OF SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
164
[Name] [Letter 1 Prenotice Email] [Title] [School] Dear [Name], A few days from now you will receive an email request to fill out a brief online questionnaire for an important research project that will address the benefits and challenges of using performance appraisal for staff positions in Christian colleges and universities. I am writing in advance because many people like to know ahead of time that they will be contacted. The study is an important one that will help me understand if Christian colleges and universities are using performance appraisal as a management tool and if so, help me compile a list of best practices as to what works well for the institutions and what does not work well. Thank you for your time and consideration. It is only with the generous help of people like you that this research can be successful. The questionnaire should take 8 – 10 minutes. Sincerely, Forrest W. Flaniken Doctoral Candidate University of Central Florida
165
[Name] [Letter 2 Cover Letter Email] [Title] [School] Dear [Name], I am writing to ask your help in a study of the use of performance appraisal for staff positions in Christian colleges and universities in the U.S. The purpose of the study is to learn if these institutions use performance appraisal and to understand the benefits and challenges that are experienced during the process. I am contacting each member of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities to ask if they use performance appraisal for their staff and if so, to help me understand some of the specifics of their process. Results from this survey will be used to develop a list of best practices that will be available to each institution in an effort to help it improve its appraisal process, to increase the benefits it gains from the process, and to therefore help the institution better accomplish its overall mission. Your answers are completely confidential and will be released only as summaries in which no individual answers can be identified. When you complete the online questionnaire, your name will be deleted from the email list and never connected to your answers in any way. This survey is voluntary. However, you can help me very much by taking a few minutes to share your experiences and opinions about performance appraisal. If for some reason you prefer not to respond, please let me know by responding to this email. Please click on the following link to begin the survey. It should take 8-10 minutes. [Link] If you have any questions or comments about this study, I would be glad to talk with you. My direct number is 407-852-3636 and my email address is [email protected]. If you would like a summary of the results of this research, please indicate your interest by replying to this email. Thank you very much for helping with this important study. Sincerely, Forrest W. Flaniken Doctoral Candidate University of Central Florida
166
[Letter 3 Reminder email] Dear [Name], Last week an email questionnaire seeking your opinion on the use of performance appraisal for staff positions in your institution was sent to you [link]. Your name and school were selected as members of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. If you have already completed and returned the online questionnaire, please accept my sincere thanks. If not, please do so today. I am especially grateful for your help because it is only by asking people like you to share your experiences that I can understand if and how performance appraisal is used and how it benefits the institutions that use it. If you experience problems accessing the survey, please call me at 407-852-3636 or email me, and I will help address any problem you may have accessing the online questionnaire. Thank you, Forrest W. Flaniken Doctoral Candidate University of Central Florida
167
[Name] Letter 4 Reminder Request [Title] [School] Dear [Name], About three weeks ago I emailed you a request to complete an online questionnaire that requested feedback concerning the use of performance appraisal in your institution. To the best of my knowledge, it has not yet been completed. The comments of people who have already responded include a wide range of experiences concerning their use of a performance appraisal system, including both benefits and challenges. I think the results are going to be very useful to the institutions who want to understand how other similar schools use performance appraisal systems and how to improve their own system. I am writing again because of the importance that your questionnaire has for helping to get accurate results. Although I sent requests to each member of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, it is only by hearing from nearly everyone that I can be sure that the results are truly representative. If you feel that you should not have received this questionnaire, please let me know by responding to this email so that I can delete your name from the email list. Your answers are completely confidential and will be released only as summaries in which no individual answers can be identified. When you complete the online questionnaire, your name will be deleted from the email list and never connected to your answers in any way. Protecting the confidentiality of people’s answers is very important to me. I hope that you will complete the online questionnaire soon [provide link], but if for any reason you prefer not to answer it, please let me know by replying to this email. Sincerely, Forrest W. Flaniken Doctoral Candidate University of Central Florida P.S. If you have any questions, please feel to call me at 407-852-3636 or email me at [email protected].
168
[Name] Letter 5 Final Reminder Email [Title] [School] Dear [Name], During the last two months I have sent you several emails about an important research study I am conducting concerning the use of performance appraisal in Christian colleges and universities. Its purpose is to develop a list of best practices that will be shared with each institution in an effort to help them improve their performance appraisal process, to increase the benefits they gain from it, and to therefore help the institution better accomplish its overall mission. The study is drawing to a close, and this is the last contact that will be made with the people to whom I have sent questionnaires. I am sending this final contact [provide link] because of my concern that people who have not responded may have had different experiences than those who have. It will take 8-10 minutes to complete it. Hearing from everyone in this small sample helps assure that the survey results are as accurate as possible. I also want to assure you that your response to this study is voluntary, and if you prefer not to respond that is fine. If you feel that I have made a mistake in contacting you for this study, please let me know by responding to this email. This would be very helpful. Finally, I appreciate your willingness to consider my request as I conclude this effort to better understand the use of performance appraisal. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Forrest W. Flaniken Doctoral Candidate University of Central Florida
169
APPENDIX F: SURVEY OF USE OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL FOR STAFF POSITIONS
170
START HERE
1. Does your institution use a performance appraisal system for the evaluation or development of its staff positions?
Yes No
If “no”, it is not necessary for you to complete the remainder of this questionnaire. Please check the box marked “no” and return the survey. Thank you.
2. How long has your institution used a performance appraisal system?
Less than 1 year 1-3 years 4-6 years more than 6 years
3. Which of the following best describes the type of performance appraisal system
that your institution uses? A manual system using either a word-processing program (e.g. Microsoft Word)
or a paper system A software program written specifically to do performance appraisal
If your answer was “A software program written to do performance appraisal”, please answer (i) below. Otherwise, please go to question 4.
i. If your institution uses a software program written specifically for
performance appraisal, was the program written in-house or purchased? In-house Purchased Please indicate the name of the software_______________________
4. In your institution, performance appraisal is used primarily to (Please check one
box) Review past performance Improve the effectiveness of the employees Both review past performance and improve the effectiveness of the employees
5. How often do most employees receive a formal, written performance appraisal
from their supervisors? Once a month Once a quarter Once every 6 months Once a year Other (please specify) __________________________
Survey of Use of Performance Appraisal For Staff Positions
Please continue on the next page
171
14. The use of performance appraisal is supported and encouraged by the leadership of your institution.
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree
15. The amount of training provided supervisors in your institution to give effective performance appraisal is
More than sufficient Sufficient Not sufficient None
Please mark a box on each line with an X. How are the results of your performance appraisal system used in your institution?
Stro
ngly
A
gree
Agr
ee
Nei
ther
A
gree
or
Dis
agre
e
Dis
agre
e
Stro
ngly
D
isag
ree
6. To provide written feedback to employees about their performance
7. To facilitate decisions concerning pay increases, promotions, and layoffs
8. To encourage performance improvement
9. To set and measure goals
10. To determine individual and organizational training and development needs
11. To confirm that good hiring decisions are being made
12. To provide legal support for personnel decisions
13. To improve overall organizational performance
Please continue on the next page
CONTINUE HERE
172
When a supervisor does not complete a performance appraisal on time,
Yes No
16. The supervisor is notified by management and is asked to complete the review.
17. There is no action taken with the supervisor by management and some appraisals are never completed.
18. This will negatively impact the future performance appraisal of the supervisor.
Please rate the following statements about your performance appraisal system by marking a box on each line with an X.
Stro
ngly
A
gree
Agr
ee
Nei
ther
A
gree
or
Dis
agre
e
Dis
agre
e
Stro
ngly
D
isag
ree
19. It demands too much time and effort from supervisors
20. Standards and ratings vary widely and sometimes unfairly from supervisor to supervisor
21. The supervisor’s personal values and bias can replace organizational standards in the evaluation process
22. The validity of the ratings is reduced by supervisory resistance to give the ratings, particularly negative ratings
23. Negative feedback can demotivate an employee
24. Performance appraisal interferes with the more constructive coaching relationship that should exist between a supervisor and his/her staff
25. Managers and staff provide input in the design, development, and choice of criteria used in the appraisal
26. The performance appraisal system is periodically reviewed and changed to insure its effectiveness
Please continue on the next page
CONTINUE HERE
173
30. How many total undergraduate and graduate students does your institution have? Less than 1,000 students Between 1,000 and 2,000 students Between 2,000 and 3,000 students More than 3,000 students
31. How many staff employees does your institution have?
Less than 200 Between 200 and 600 Between 600 and 1000 More than 1000
32. Please indicate your gender:
Male Female
33. Please indicate how many years you have been in your present position:
______ years
34. If you would like to comment or elaborate on any of the issues addressed in this questionnaire that will complement this research, please do so below.
Please indicate answers for 26-28 by marking the
appropriate box with an X.
Ver
y sa
tisfie
d
Satis
fied
Nei
ther
sa
tisfie
d or
di
ssat
isfie
d
Dis
satis
fied
Ver
y D
issa
tisfie
d
27. How satisfied are your institution’s managers with your performance appraisal system?
28. How satisfied are your institution’s employees with your performance appraisal system?
29. The overall satisfaction level of your institution with its performance appraisal system is:
CONTINUE HERE
Thank you for completing the questionnaire. Please return it to me now.
174
APPENDIX G: IRB APPROVAL LETTER
175
176
177
REFERENCES
Alexander, F. K. (2000). The changing face of accountability. Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 411-431.
Andringa, R. C. (2009). Keeping the faith: Leadership challenges unique to religiously affiliated colleges and universities. In J. Martin & J. E. Samels (Eds.), Turnaround: Leading stressed colleges and universities to excellence (pp. 168-184). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Austin, A. E., & Gamson, Z. F. (1983). Academic workplace: New demands, heightened tensions. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Research Report No. 10. Washington, DC.: Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Baird, L., Beatty, R. W., & Schneier, C. E. (1987). The performance management sourcebook. Amherst, Mass.: Human Resource Development Press.
Baldridge, J. V., Curtis, D. V., Ecker, G. P., & Riley, G. L. (1977). Alternative models of governance in higher education. In G. L. Riley & J. V. Baldridge (Eds.), Governing academic organizations: New problems, new perspectives (pp. 1-347). Berkley, CA: McCutchan Pub. Corp.
Bellows, R. M., & Estep, M. F. (1954). Employment psychology: The interview. New York: Rinehart.
Bergquist, W. H., & Pawlak, K. (2008). Engaging the six cultures of the academy: Revised and expanded edition of the four cultures of the academy (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bergquist, W. H., & Tenbrink, G. J. (1977). Evaluation of administrators. In A. S. Knowles (Ed.), International encyclopedia of higher education (1st ed., pp. 1493-1498). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Berman, W. F. (1980). MBO in student personnel: Can it work? In C. H. Foxley (Ed.), Applying management techniques (pp. 55-67). New Directions for Student Services, No. 9. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bernardin, H. J., & Beatty, R. W. (1984). Performance appraisal: Assessing human behavior at work. Boston: Kent.
Bernardin, H. J., Hagan, C. M., Kane, J. S., & Villanova, P. (1998). Effective performance management. In J. W. Smither (Ed.), Performance appraisal: State of the art in practice (1st ed., pp. 3-48). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
178
Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Blackburn, R. T., & Pitney, J. A. (1988). Performance appraisal for faculty: Implications for higher education. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Boswell, W. R., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). Employee satisfaction with performance appraisals and appraisers: The role of perceived appraisal use. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(3), 283-299.
Boswell, W. R., & Boudreau, J. W. (2002). Separating the developmental and evaluative performance appraisal uses. Journal of Business & Psychology, 16(3), 391-412.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
The brains business. (2005). The Economist. Retrieved April 22, 2009 from http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4339960
Braskamp, L. A., & Ory, J. C. (1994). Assessing faculty work: Enhancing individual and institutional performance (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Bretz Jr., R. D., Milkovich, G. T., & Read, W. (1992). The current state of performance appraisal research and practice: Concerns, directions, and implications. Journal of Management, 18(2), 321.
Brinkerhoff, D. W., & Kanter, R. M. (1980). Appraising the performance of performance appraisal. Sloan Management Review, 21(3), 3-16.
Brown, R. D. (1988). Performance appraisal as a tool for staff development. In M. J. Barr & M. L. Upcraft (Eds.), New directions for student services (pp. 3-105). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brubacher, J. S., & Rudy, W. (1997). Higher education in transition: A history of American colleges and universities (4th ed.). New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction.
Buford, J. A. (1989). Legal aspects of performance appraisal. In B. B. Burkhalter & J. A. Buford Jr. (Eds.), Performance appraisal: Concepts and techniques for postsecondary education (pp. 9-17). Alexandria, VA: American Association of Community and Junior Colleges Publications.
179
Burkhalter, B. B., & Buford, J. A., Jr. (1989). Performance appraisal: Concepts and techniques for postsecondary education. Alexandria, VA: American Association of Community and Junior Colleges Publications.
Campbell, C. H., Ford, P., Rumsey, M., Pulakos, E., Borman, W., & Felker, D. (1990). Development of multiple job performance measures in a representative sample of jobs. Personnel Psychology, 43(2), 277.
Cederblom, D., & Pemerl, D. E. (2002). From performance appraisal to performance management: One agency's experience. Public Personnel Management, 31(2), 131.
Clement, R. W., & Stevens, G. E. (1989). Performance appraisal in higher education: Comparing department of management with other business units. Public Personnel Management, 18(3), 263-78.
Cleveland, J., Landy, F. J., & Zedeck, S. (1983). Performance measurement and theory. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, M. D., & March, J. G. (1974). Leadership and ambiguity: The American college president. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Conry, T., & Kemper, J. (1993). Performance evaluations: Bridging the gap between today's goals and tomorrow's reality. CUPA Journal, 44(3), 29-33.
Council for Christian colleges and universities. Downloaded March 13, 2009 from http://www.cccu.org/members_and_affiliates/member__affiliate_application__criteria
Cox, K. S., & Downey, R. G. (2002). Resurgence of administrative evaluations and unit climate surveys to improve and strengthen institutional leadership. AIR 2002 Forum Paper.
Creamer, D. G., & Winston, R. B., Jr. (1999). The performance appraisal paradox: An essential but neglected student affairs staffing function. NASPA Journal, 36(4), 248-63.
Daugherty, E. M. (2001). Procedures used in evaluating faculty performance in two-year institutions of higher education. (Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio University). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.ucf.edu/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.lib.ucf.edu/pqdweb?did=728934141&sid=3&Fmt=2&clientId=20176&RQT=309&VName=PQD on March 15, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 3015164).
180
Davis, J. S. (2001). Approaches to performance appraisal in student affairs. College Student Affairs Journal, 21(1), 92.
DeJong, J. (1992). Making sense of church-related higher education. New Directions for Higher Education, 79, 19-27.
Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study.
DeNisi, A. S. (1996). A cognitive approach to performance appraisal: A program of research. London: Routledge.
Derven, M. G. (1990). The paradox of performance appraisals. The Personnel Journal, 69(2), 107.
DeVries, D. L. (1986). Performance appraisal on the line. Greensboro, N.C.: Center for Creative Leadership.
Dill, D. D. (2000). The management of academic culture: Notes on the management of meaning and social integration. In M. C. Brown (Ed.), Organization & governance in higher education (5th ed., pp. 261-272). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Pub. (Reprinted from Higher Education, Vol. 11, 1982, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands).
Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Dilts, D. A., Haber, L. J., & Bialik, D. (1994). Assessing what professors do: An introduction to academic performance appraisal in higher education. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
Downey, J. (1995). The university as trinity: Balancing corporation, collegium, and community. Innovative Higher Education, 21(2), 73.
Drucker, P. F. (1954). The practice of management (1st ed.). New York: Harper.
Evolution of federal white-collar pay. (n.d.). Retrieved March 13, 2009 from http://www.opm.gov/strategiccomp/html/HISTORY1.asp
Fletcher, C. (2001). Performance appraisal and management: The developing research agenda. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 74(4), 473.
Forest, J. J. F., & Kinser, K. (2002). Higher education in the United States: An encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO.
181
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research : An introduction (6th ed.). White Plains, N.Y.: Longman.
Gray, G. (2002). Performance appraisals don't work. IIE Solutions, 34(5), 15.
Greenberg, M. (2004). A university is not a business (and other fantasies). Educause Review, 39(2), 10-16.
Grote, R. C. (1996). The complete guide to performance appraisal. New York: AMACOM.
Grote, R. C. (2002). The performance appraisal question and answer book: A survival guide for managers. New York: American Management Association.
Hall, G. S. (1904). Adolescence: Its psychology and its relations to physiology, anthropology, sociology sex, crime, religion and education (2). New York: D. Appleton.
Heck, R. H., Johnsrud, L. K., & Rosser, V. J. (2000). Administrative effectiveness in higher education: Improving assessment procedures. Research in Higher Education, 41(6), 663-684.
Heilbroner, R. L. (1961). The worldly philosophers: Lives, times and ideas of the great economic thinkers (Rev. ed.). New York: Simon and Schuster.
Henry, D. D. (1972). Accountability: To whom, for what, by what means? Educational Record.
Johnsrud, L. K. (2002). Measuring the quality of faculty and administrative worklife: Implications for college and university campuses. Research in Higher Education, 43(3), 379-395.
Keller, G. (1983). Academic strategy: The management revolution in American higher education. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kemper, J. (2005). Performance management systems: A glance at the past paves the way for today. CUPA-HR Journal, 56(1), 21.
Kerr, C., Gade, M. L., & Kawaoka, M. (1994). Troubled times for American higher education: The 1990s and beyond. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Kreitner, R. (1998). Management (7th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
182
Kuh, G. D., & Whitt, E. J. (2000). Cultures in American colleges and universities. In M. C. Brown (Ed.), Organization & governance in higher education (5th ed., pp. 160-169). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Pub. (Reprinted from ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1, Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education, 1988).
Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. (1983). The measurement of work performance: Methods, theory, and applications. New York: Academic Press.
Latham, G. P., & Wexley, K. N. (1980). Increasing productivity through performance appraisal. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Lawrie, J. (1990). Assessment: Prepare for performance appraisal. The Personnel Journal, 69(4), 132.
Lewis, P. H. (1996). Making change happen through appraisal and development. CUPA Journal, 47(1), 7.
Lewis, R. G., & Smith, D. H. (1994). Total quality in higher education. Delray Beach, Fla.: St. Lucie Press.
Lohmann, S. (2004). Can the university be more like a business? Economics of Governance, 5,9-27
Longenecker, C. O. (2005). Managerial performance appraisals: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Compensation & Benefits, 21(3), 30-37.
Longenecker, C. O., & Fink, L. S. (1999). Creating effective performance appraisals. Industrial Management, 41(5), 18.
Longenecker, C. O., & Fink, L. S. (2007). The performance management and appraisal of middle managers in rapidly changing organizations. Journal of Compensation & Benefits, 23(2), 28-34.
Longenecker, C. O., & Nykodym, N. (1996). Public sector performance appraisal effectiveness: A case study. Public Personnel Management, 25(2), 151.
Lonsdale, A. (1998). Performance appraisal, performance management and quality in higher education: Contradictions, issues and guiding principles for the future. Australian Journal of Education, 42(3), 303-20.
Lopez, F. M. (1968). Evaluating employee performance. Chicago: Public Personnel Association.
183
Mani, B. G. (2002). Performance appraisal systems, productivity, and motivation: A case study. Public Personnel Management, 31(2), 141.
Martin, D. C., Bartol, K. M., & Kehoe, P. E. (2000). The legal ramifications of performance appraisal: The growing significance. Public Personnel Management, 29(3), 379.
Masland, A. T. (2000). Organizational culture in the study of higher education. In M. C. Brown (Ed.), Organization & governance in higher education (5th ed., pp. 145-152). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Pub. (Reprinted from Review of Higher Education, Vol. 8, No. 2. Copyright 1985 by the Association for the Study of Higher Education).
McConnell, T. R. (1971). Accountability and autonomy. The Journal of Higher Education, 42(6), 446-463.
McKinnon, N. C. (1993). Development of a performance appraisal program for nonacademic staff at Atlantic Baptist College.
McNerney, D. J. (1995). Improved performance appraisals: Process of elimination. HR Focus, 72(7), 1.
Mohrman, A. M., Resnick-West, S. M., & Lawler, E. E. (1989). Designing performance appraisal systems: Aligning appraisals and organizational realities (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Muntz, P., & Crabtree, D. (2006). All together different: The world of Christian higher education. Journal of College Admission, (192), 16-21.
Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. (1991). Performance appraisal: An organizational perspective. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Nickols, F. (2007). Performance appraisal: Weighed and found wanting in the balance. Journal for Quality & Participation, 30(1), 13-16.
Oberg, W. (1972). Make performance appraisal relevant. Harvard Business Review, 50(1), 61-67.
Patten, T. H. (1977). Pay: Employee compensation and incentive plans. New York: The Free Press.
184
Patterson, J. A. (2005). Boundary maintenance in evangelical Christian higher education: A case study of the council for Christian colleges & universities. Christian Higher Education, 4(1), 41-56.
Performance appraisal. (n.d.). Retrieved November 12, 2006 from http://www.performance-appraisal.com/home.htm
Pettijohn, L. S., Parker, R. S., Pettijohn, C. E., & Kent, J. L. (2001). Performance appraisals: Usage, criteria and observations. Journal of Management Development, 20(9), 754.
Rasch, L. (2004). Employee performance appraisal and the 95/5 rule. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 28(5), 407-414.
Roberts, G. E. (1998). Perspectives on enduring and emerging issues in performance appraisal. Public Personnel Management, 27(3), 301.
Roberts, G. E. (2003). Employee performance appraisal system participation: A technique that works. Public Personnel Management, 32(1), 89.
Rothe, H. F. (1946). Output rates among butter wrappers: Work curves and their stability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 30(3), 199-211.
Rynes, S. L., Gerhart, B., & Parks, L. (2005). Personnel psychology: Performance evaluation and pay for performance. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 571-600.
Sandin, R. T. (1992). To those who teach at Christian colleges. New Directions for Higher Education, 79, 43-54.
Schraeder, M., Becton, J. B., & Portis, R. (2007). A critical examination of performance appraisals. Journal for Quality & Participation, 30(1), 20-25.
Scott, W. D., Clothier, R. C., & Spriegel, W. R. (1961). Personnel management: Principles, practices, and point of view (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Seldin, P. (1988). Evaluating and developing administrative performance: A practical guide for academic leaders (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shah, J. B., & Murphy, J. (1995). Performance appraisals for improved productivity. Journal of Management in Engineering, 11(2), 26.
Sims, J. M., & Foxley, C. H. (1980). Job analysis, job descriptions, and performance appraisal systems. In C. H. Foxley (Ed.), Applying management techniques (pp. 41-53). New Directions for Student Services, No. 9. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
185
Smith, R. (1996). Staff appraisal at Nene College of Higher Education. Higher Education Management, 8(2), 69-77.
Snyder, T. D., Dillow, S. A. & Hoffman, C. M. (2008). Digest of education statistics, 2007.Downloaded March 13, 2009 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008022
Spriegel, W. R. (1962). Company practices in appraisal of managerial performance. Personnel Journal, 39, 77-83.
Starcher, R. (1996). Individual performance appraisal systems. Production & Inventory Management Journal, 37(4), 58-62.
Thomas, S. L., & Bretz Jr., R. D. (1994). Research and practice in performance appraisal: Evaluating employee performance in America's largest companies. SAM Advanced Management Journal (07497075), 59(2), 28.
Wanguri, D. M. (1995). A review, an integration, and a critique of cross-disciplinary research on performance appraisals, evaluations, and feedback: 1980-1990. Journal of Business Communication, 32(3), 267-293.
Weber, J. C. (2005). Why can't colleges and universities be run more like businesses? College and University, 80(3), 39-42.
Winston, R. B., Jr, & Creamer, D. G. (1997). Improving staffing practices in student affairs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wolverton, M., Gmelch, W. H., Montez, J., & Nies, C. T. (2001). The changing nature of the academic deanship. Washington, DC.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.